Zeiss Lenses

[Primrose12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi ! Has any member of the forum ever used Zeiss ZM lenses on the M9 ? If so what is your opinion of the quality of the results, as opposed to that of the true Leica Lenses.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Primrose12]

:(Hi ! Has any member of the forum ever used Zeiss ZM lenses on the M9 ? If so what is your opinion of the quality of the results, as opposed to that of the true Leica Lenses.

[JPH1962]

Hi

Currently I use a 50 1.5 Sonnar almost exclusively - my 50 ASPH has since I got the Sonnar not seen any use... I don't really know why, but it's a fact. Maybe the 50 ASPH - even thought is a very good lens - is just too boring.... may be the focussing tabs disturbs me. So it might just be a matter of the handling.

 

The quality of the ZM is is very good, mechanics and optics. And the price as well.

 

Besides, I had a 21 2.8 ZM wich delivered excellent results... but it's a bit too wide for my taste - I prefer my 24 lux.

 

Happy shooting

 

JPH

[jdlaing]

28mm f/2.8, 36mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/2.8 and all are stellar lenses on an M9.

[Double Negative]

I've used the Zeiss ZM lenses on the Ikon, M7 and M8/M9. They're fantastic lenses with a few things to keep in mind. Namely, their mechanical construction and coding them (mostly the wide angles). You'll want to use the latest M9 firmware as well.

 

Here's an overview of the Zeiss ZM Lenses, along with a variety of reviews of individual lenses (on the M9 primarily).

[TomB_tx]

I have both the Zeiss 50 f2 Planar and a Leica 50 f2 Summicron (previous version). While the rendering is different, both are very nice. I've been using the Zeiss more lately.

[pedaes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I used a Plannar F2 waiting for 50 'lux and it was excellent, very sharp and strong colours. See Sean Reid and Erwin Putts websites for detailed tests.

[MarkP]

I have a range of both Leica and Zeiss lenses:

 

the 1.5/50 Sonnar and 2.8/25 Biogon are fantastic lenses and a relative bargain for the image quality they deliver.

 

I loved the images I got with the 4.0/21 Biogon for B&W, but the post-processing red edge repairs gave me the shits so I replaced it with a 3.4/21 SEM.

[elgenper]

:(Hi ! Has any member of the forum ever used Zeiss ZM lenses on the M9 ? If so what is your opinion of the quality of the results, as opposed to that of the true Leica Lenses.

 

Never tried one myself, but I´d suggest that you read Steve Huff´s reviews of several Zeiss lenses together with their Leica counterparts.

 

Even better IMHO is Sean Reid´s reviews. His site is a subscription one, so it will cost you about USD 30 to get them, but that is money extremely well spent if you´re contemplating to buy lenses.

[Ralf]

I used a Plannar F2 waiting for 50 'lux and it was excellent, very sharp and strong colours. See Sean Reid and Erwin Putts websites for detailed tests.

 

Same here, the Planar is an excellent lens, I keep and use it from time to time, although I have my Summilux in the meantime. Would love to get my hands on a Sonnar once to try it, 50mm is my preferred length, so I wouldn't mind owning one in case I liked it .

[Double Negative]

What's not to love optically? The Planar 2/50 is wonderfully sharp from wide open, the Biogon 2/35 has essentially zero distortion and the Biogon 2,8/25 is ridiculously good. The C Sonnar 1,5/50 is just a unique beast in its own right. Really, not a bad one in the whole bunch.

[armanius]

I just went Zeiss crazy these past two weeks, and got the ZM 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2 for the M9. After originally getting the M9 almost two years ago, I couldn't afford anything more than the Voigtlander lenses.

 

Out of the new Zeiss lenses I got, I really like the 21/2.8. Sharp across the frame at 2.8, and unlike the Voigtlander Skopar 21/4, I haven't seen any red fringe on my photos (or maybe I'm not looking hard enough). The Zeiss 21 is smaller and 1/3 of the price of the 21 Elmarit. But it's relatively bigger and 3x the price of the Skopar.

 

Not sure if the other lenses will be keepers. The 35 Biogon is nice, but I keep craving for a 35 Cron. But not sure if I want to pay $3000+ for a Cron.

[CalArts 99]

I have two, a silver 28mm 2.8 Biogen and a black 50mm 2.0 Planar. I use them constantly on two M6 bodies (a silver and a black) and sometimes on the M9.

 

I personally think they are superb lenses with excellent build quality and pretty solid. I believe they are both 9 blade apertures (maybe 10? I didn't count actually them.) The color rendition with the Zeiss T* coating and the overall 'depth' are really nice. High resolution but with character.

 

Their lens hoods are exceptionally well built although the lens caps are terrible. They are vented and all metal. I use a hood as both potential flare protection but also so I don't have to use the awful lens caps. And once you get accustomed to the focusing 'bump' instead of a tab, it works fine.

 

The only issue (and it's minor) is that the black lens has red paint for the imperial distance engravings and white for the metric. With the silver lens, it's blue for imperial and black for metric. I'm used to using feet and it's more difficult to read the red markings. On the silver lens, the blue is a little bit easier. No big issue if you use metric. I just think more in metric when I use the Zeiss lenses.

 

I'm happy with them.

[Jon Pop]

I have a Zeiss 35mm Biogon C f2.8 and have been using it a fair bit on the M9 (I have 28, 50, and 90 Leica lenses). I really like it a lot - great sharpness, solid construction, aperture clicks are snappy and the focus is smooth. No flare. Great hood (bayonets solidly in place). All the reviews of it (Erwin Puts, Rockwell, Huff, etc.) are solid; Puts gives it quite high praise in a comparison against the 35mm Summarit f2.5; if it's good for him and his extremely thorough scientific approach, who am I to argue? Only wonky thing (which Rockwell whines about constantly to the point of distraction) is the 43mm filter size. But I can live with it. I'd highly recommend it to someone with only $1000 or so to spend but with truly no compromise in performance.

[darylgo]

35/2 Biogon is superb if you want a lens that is tack sharp all the way into the corners. I recently compared it to the new Voigtlander 35/1.2, a lens receiving much acclaim. The Biogon was superior in the corners although on center they were similar. Whenever shooting the Biogon I am amazed at the quality therefore the Leica 35/2 is not something I would purchase. The 50/2 Planar is also good but not in the same league as the Biogon....for sharpness, therefore I am planning to purchase the Leica 50/1.4 Asph.

[M. Valdemar]

In practical use, the result from the modern Zeiss lenses are impossible to tell from the results from the Leica lenses.

 

If you want to dissect build quality, handling, or debate lens tests, you can find some pros and cons between Zeiss and Leica.

 

For picture taking, both are more than excellent. The Zeiss lenses are considerably cheaper to buy.

[haroldp]

I am using the Zeiss 21 /2.8 and it is unreservedly excellent. I do not have the Leica 21 /2.8 for comparison but it is easily as good as my WATE at 21mm and that is quite good indeed.

 

I got it because it is much smaller than the WATE (and 1 stop faster) for when 21mm is wide enough.

 

Regards ... H

[gpwhite]

I have used my 85 ZM f/2 Sonnar and 15 ZM f/2.8 Distagon on RD-1, M8 and M9.

 

Zeiss lenses are every bit as capable and superbly constructed as Leica... but there are very noticeable stylistic differences in how they render color, contrast and curvature of objects in the field. You really need to shoot comparable lenses between Leica and Zeiss in order to decide what you like best. I find that it is a matter of preference (like pizza or wine), not whether Leica or Zeiss are objectively superior to the other.

 

Generalizing, I think Leica corrects chromatic aberrations better and renders an illusion of depth that is remarkable (24 Elmar, 50 SX). Zeiss have more contrast and perhaps sharper very fine details.

 

Also, Lloyd Chambers writes that he sold his ZM lenses because they are not calibrated on the Leica digital M dimensions. I find his insights and advice to be very valuable, but I have to tell you that my ZM lenses are beautiful on my M9 (and M8 before that).

 

One other comment to spur you to compare Leica and Zeiss in order to form your own preferences... you might hear something like, "well, the Zeiss lenses made in Japan (by Cosina) are not the same as Zeiss Germany." I have two Zeiss ZF.2 lenses that are equally wonderful to the German ZM or my Leica lenses.

 

Have fun and investigate!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zlatkob]

Also, Lloyd Chambers writes that he sold his ZM lenses because they are not calibrated on the Leica digital M dimensions. I find his insights and advice to be very valuable, but I have to tell you that my ZM lenses are beautiful on my M9 (and M8 before that).

 

Wow, it is surprising that the views go from one extreme to the other. So much praise (in this thread) on the one hand, and on the other hand is a reviewer who sells his ZM lenses because they're not calibrated to digital M dimensions. How can views differ so much?

[jaapv]

The selling is a bit surprising, even if ZM lenses may be calibrated to a wider tolerance span than Leica ones. They can easily be adjusted by many of the well known rangefinder specialists.