Hemry Posted May 31, 2015 Share #1 Posted May 31, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) In order to fire employees , the Carl Zeiss company gives him the task to improve the Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH If the victim fails within 2 weeks, he is fired because of lack of qualification. Is it possible to improve Summilux (within 2 weeks)? What Zeiss lens could compare with Summilux? What is the opinion in the forum? What is the experience with the design department of Carl Zeiss? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 31, 2015 Posted May 31, 2015 Hi Hemry, Take a look here Leica / Zeiss: Who is better?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Hemry Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share #2 Posted May 31, 2015 That´s funny. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted May 31, 2015 Share #3 Posted May 31, 2015 In order to fire employees , the Carl Zeiss company gives him the task to improve the Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 ASPH If the victim fails within 2 weeks, he is fired because of lack of qualification. Is it possible to improve Summilux (within 2 weeks)? What Zeiss lens could compare with Summilux? What is the opinion in the forum? What is the experience with the design department of Carl Zeiss? What are you on?.... Anyway. Zeiss has the Otus which is a lens more in league of the 50mm APO than the Summilux, however it weighs in at more than any zoom lens at a whole kilo, and it has an optical design more complex than most zooms. Leica is a master of simplicity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 31, 2015 Share #4 Posted May 31, 2015 Can't say that I personally know anyone in Zeiss lens design. The 1.4/35 ZM Distagon T* may not be as compact as the 1.4/35 Summilux, but it is optically 'superior'. The 2.8/25 ZM Biogon is an outstanding lens as the cheap and humble 2.0/50 Planar. Leaving aside designs for non-Leica systems, Zeiss can certainly deliver a good lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted May 31, 2015 Share #5 Posted May 31, 2015 Can't say that I personally know anyone in Zeiss lens design. The 1.4/35 ZM Distagon T* may not be as compact as the 1.4/35 Summilux, but it is optically 'superior'. It is, but not by much. It has less focus shift (the Zeiss has practically none) and slightly smoother bokeh. Otherwise the lenses are much the same in terms of contrast and sharpness. And with the Zeiss you get a larger heaver lens however the price is half. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 31, 2015 Share #6 Posted May 31, 2015 It is, but not by much. It has less focus shift (the Zeiss has practically none) and slightly smoother bokeh. Otherwise the lenses are much the same in terms of contrast and sharpness. And with the Zeiss you get a larger heaver lens however the price is half. We don't disagree but 'not by much' is still better - i did specify 'optically'. I do have the 35 Summilux which is a fantastic lens. I don't have or want a Distagon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 31, 2015 Share #7 Posted May 31, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) They both are "better" . They just have different approaches. During the reign of Mr. Lee quite a few Leica lens designers moved to Zeiss. Wetzlar/Solms is a small optical community Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 31, 2015 Share #8 Posted May 31, 2015 What is the opinion in the forum? If I were you I'd try asking a less 'controversial/inflammatory' question as a newcomer to the forum. It might give more credibility to your rather pointless question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted May 31, 2015 Share #9 Posted May 31, 2015 Define "better." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted May 31, 2015 Share #10 Posted May 31, 2015 So Henry, do you own Zeiss lenses? If so, for what system were they designed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted June 1, 2015 Share #11 Posted June 1, 2015 They both are "better" . They just have different approaches. During the reign of Mr. Lee quite a few Leica lens designers moved to Zeiss. Wetzlar/Solms is a small optical community +1 jaapv, could you elaborate more or point to a good source, really enjoy reading about this. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredR Posted June 1, 2015 Share #12 Posted June 1, 2015 The Zeiss labor force would initiate industrial action in response to the two-week firing threat, official action would heavily penalize the corporation, redundancies would result, receivers would be called in and Leitz would take over Zeiss with generous government subsidy to save the company and jobs. Forget it. Fred Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerndReini Posted June 1, 2015 Share #13 Posted June 1, 2015 Zeiss lenses are outstanding, but the optically great ones are big. They make the best cinema lenses in the work at up to $40,000 per prime lens. As far as the Otus is concerned, that lens weighs more than the whole system that caused me to switch to Leicas M series. But most of the ZM lenses are made in Japan by Cosina. I can tell you from experience that quality control is hit or miss, and when your grease dries out two years after purchase, you have to pay for servicing. That left a bad taste in my mouth as far as the M mount Zeiss lenses are concerned. I know that there can be quality control issues with Leica lenses too, but far less common, and the passport warranty is fantastic. Before anyone replies with a rebuttal to the Japan made Zeiss lens quality, please do a google search and see how common of a problem play in the focusing mechanism and bad, noisy focusing is with the ZM line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 1, 2015 Share #14 Posted June 1, 2015 Not my experience. Both my C-Biogon 35 and Tele-Tessar 85 that I have owned for years are excellent mechanically, with smooth, well-weighed focusing. The lens hoods are better than any that Leica makes with chrome bajonet fitiing.The rendering is quite different from Leica, though. I prefer these lenses on my Monochrom 1, but do not like them quite as much on my 240. I honestly cannot find the focusing problems you mention in Google, except LaVida. What search words did you use? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted June 1, 2015 Share #15 Posted June 1, 2015 .... how common of a problem play in the focusing mechanism and bad, noisy focusing is with the ZM line. I own 5 ZM and 7 ZF lenses, plus 8 elder QBM lenses for Rolleiflex. Except one of the older lenses (needs relubricating after more than 30 yrs.) all of these are perfect in focussing mechanism without any reason for objection. To give answer to the thread openers question: "Better" is a question of dedication: Price, weight, dimension (and other points) have to confluence into the optical realisation: The prime lenses for Cinema are a good illustration, what Leica & Zeiss are able to do, but who of us wants to pay that amount of money and not all of us can afford Sherpas for equipment hauling all day.... Thomas my personal preference: I'm fascinated by simple desings exhausting all optical possibiltys: Hologon 3lenser e.g. (can't afford one, and it does not make sense on digital, I know, but it's fascinating!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 1, 2015 Share #16 Posted June 1, 2015 Let's not say better, but both brands produce very fine glass, comparable in optical quality. Some designs are weaker or stronger in some FLs, but that is true both ways. I prefer the zeiss rendering hence the all zm line up. No mechanical issues with my lenses whatsoever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted June 1, 2015 Share #17 Posted June 1, 2015 But most of the ZM lenses are made in Japan by Cosina. I can tell you from experience that quality control is hit or miss, and when your grease dries out two years after purchase, you have to pay for servicing. That left a bad taste in my mouth as far as the M mount Zeiss lenses are concerned. I know that there can be quality control issues with Leica lenses too, but far less common, and the passport warranty is fantastic. Before anyone replies with a rebuttal to the Japan made Zeiss lens quality, please do a google search and see how common of a problem play in the focusing mechanism and bad, noisy focusing is with the ZM line. Agreed. I recently decided to replace my Distagon 35mm 1.4 with a Summilux FLE 35mm. Why? Well because the precision of the mount is not there, it's too tight. It wore down the chrome plating and is leaving behind a brass residue on the camera. I have a Voigtlander 15mm with a similar issue, also made by Cosina. None of my Leica lenses have these types of issues. Cosina does not appear to manufacture to the tight tolerances Leica does. The Distagon is a beautiful lens with a rendering quality that exceeds the Summilux FLE, it is optical perfection and is quite possibly the best 35mm lens in the world. I am sad I have to give it up due to mechanical issues. For 50mm however? This focal length is an area where Zeiss struggles. They have the Zeiss Planar f2 however it's only at the level of the 50mm Summicron. Zeiss does not have a ZM mount lens that can compare to the APO or Summilux. Leica owns 50mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 1, 2015 Share #18 Posted June 1, 2015 There are several tests that show the planar slightly sharper than the 50 apo at short distances. The apo strength seems to be at infinity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted June 1, 2015 Share #19 Posted June 1, 2015 There are several tests that show the planar slightly sharper than the 50 apo at short distances. The apo strength seems to be at infinity. Edward, I have not seen any test suggested as such. Both Imatest (close focus) from PCmag and optical bench (lensrental) show the APO is clearly superior at all distance. It does make sense since the APO has floating element while the Planar doesn't. Except the ZM 35/1.4, all of the current ZMs were designed for film, so shooting them on digital do incur a bit of performance penalty, especially for WA. Zeiss is all about relaxed design so their lenses would always be bigger (for the same aperture). This definitely helps with smoothing out some of the optical characteristics: bokeh, distortion, vignette, etc. Zeiss also have among the best lens coating in the business that can handle flare very well. With that said, the much higher price tag of a Leica allows them to produce much smaller lenses and introduce more exotic elements for aberration correction. This is why they can come out with the high performance, "small" Lux series, especially for UWA-WA segment, that no one could ever do. Or, the (super) elmar series that give you the absolute performance. If Leica is forced to make the lens big, Leica would have a hard time to show any clear superiority, IMO. Below 180 in the SLR line, I greatly prefer Contax C/Y optics, for instance, over the Leica R. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernie.lcf Posted June 1, 2015 Share #20 Posted June 1, 2015 For 50mm however? This focal length is an area where Zeiss struggles. They have the Zeiss Planar f2 however it's only at the level of the 50mm Summicron. Between the current (APO-less) Summicron 50/2.0 and Zeiss ZM Planar 50/2.0 the Zeiss runs circles around the Summicron when it comes to flare and shooting against the light. In these situations, the Summicron is a surprisingly bad lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.