Leica / Zeiss: Who is better?

[indergaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Zeiss is clearly better, if you factor in cost vs performance ratio.

[Advertisement]

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

[edwardkaraa]

Hiepphotog, I can mention to you an earlier comparison done by Ming Thein, and also an indirect comparison (they were not directly compared by the author but if you dig up both tests you do your own comparison) by Reid reviews. The apo being apo, of course it would have superior CA correction but I'm quite positive that in terms of sharpness alone, and at portrait distances, the planar may be just a notch ahead.

[Ai_Print]

I have the Planar and think it is pretty incredible even if it were priced at Leica levels, a total steal at Zeiss ZM prices. But it is also the same size and a smidgen lighter than the Summicron, more so in chrome. 

 

But many of their other lenses are a bit to quite a bit larger than their Leica counterparts so that can play well into the equation. A great example of this is the new 35mm 1.4, it is pretty big for an M lens and the Leica version even in FLE is a good bit smaller. 

 

In my case I was looking for a good solid 28mm 2.8 and had borrowed a friend's Biogon for a week while deciding if I wanted to buy it or not, it was certainly sharp enough. Then I handled a nice clean 28 Elmarit Asph at a local dealer and my mind was made up, the Elmarit was just soooo nice and small!

 

It's pretty amazing to me just how often Leica lenses of equal or better image quality to Zeiss ZM are much smaller.

[edwardkaraa]

The zm 28 is the real weak link in the entire line. The Leica options, both f/2 and f/2.8 are clearly better.

[james.liam]

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.

 

I wouldn't say it's a 'bad lens', it's just an old design (1970's) from film days and must be understood for proper use. My gripe with it (when I owned one) was a troubling degree of focus shift from ƒ/2.8-5.6 on digital, an attribute found in the 35 'cron ASPH too. It has a near-flat field and from ƒ/5.6 onward, resolved spectacularly; ideal characteristics for landscapes. If that's the aperture range you're primarily shooting at, it will serve you well. It has a 'look' very different than the Zeiss, noticeably lower contrast at ƒ/2-2.8 ( a bit of that "Mandler glow"), and might be more appealing (and forgiving) with portraiture.

 

I haven't used the Planar but for the money, a CV 1,5/50 may be the more interesting choice and a nice compromise between Zeiss/Leica. Its rendering is closer to the old Summilux; soft WO but sharpens up very nicely by ƒ/2.8. While I personally love Zeiss--the 35C is an oft-overlooked gem--, the unrelenting high-contrast can be a bit much for some subject matter.

 

"Horses for courses", since 'better' is a superfluous attribute to seek here.

[lct]

There is no Zeiss 50/1.4 in M format. The ZM 50/1.5 is a very good lens with a lot of character but it is significantly softer than the Summilux asph below f/4 and has a lot of focus shift. It is my favorite 50 for soft portraits though. Zeiss could certainly make a sharper 50/1.5 or 1.4 but it would be more bulky than the Summilux asph most probably.

[james.liam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is no Zeiss 50/1.4 in M format. The ZM 50/1.5 is a very good lens with a lot of character but it is significantly softer than the Summilux asph below f/4 and has a lot of focus shift. It is my favorite 50 for soft portraits though. Zeiss could certainly make a sharper 50/1.5 or 1.4 but it would be more bulky than the Summilux asph most probably.

 

Look, if they could design an ƒ/1,8 APO for 1/4 the price and the same size of a Leica 50 APO, no one would quibble. 

[lct]

One can believe in miracles as well. Aside from the "C" lenses (21/4.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.5), ZM lenses have always been bulkier than Leicas. Looks at the last ZM 35/1.4. It is as bulky as a 90mm Leica lens.

[james.liam]

One can believe in miracles as well. Aside from the "C" lenses (21/4.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.5), ZM lenses have always been bulkier than Leicas. Looks at the last ZM 35/1.4. It is as bulky as a 90mm Leica lens.

 

Hope springs eternal.

 

I don't think anyone anticipated the 1,4/35, so who knows?

Maybe a 21C that works on digital? Or a 50 "C" (? ƒ/2.2), now APO.

[Rick in CO]

Which is BETTER?  As ADAN remarked, "define better"!  I have owned a 50 Summicron which was mediocre (nothing technically/physically wrong with it) and have a 53 Schneider Super Angulon  (Linhof) which was better than 3 different 53 Zeiss Linhof Biogons which I tested.  Bad luck? Maybe.  I have noticed that the earlier Leica lenses have that "Leica Look".  The later ASPH/Apo lenses come closer to the classical Zeiss look.  It depends on what you want.  However, I recently traded my 50 Planar for the 50 ASPH Summilux and am very happy - it fits right in with my other ZM lenses in overall rendition on my M9 (25 Biogon & 85 Sonnar)!  Read Erwin Puts' reviews of the ZM vs Leica offerings.  He gives a very apt appraisal IMHO.  The Zeiss lenses are less expensive, have a particular rendition that you either prefer or don't, and offer nearly as good performance, in some cases as good as Leica (in particular, the 15-25mm f2.8 Biogons, 85 f2 Sonnar, and that 35 f2.8 Biogon which has to be the best bargain lens on the Leica-mount planet!)   Which is better depends on what you want.  Is a Porsche Carrera better than a Gelandewagen?   I don't mean that to be a particularly accurate comparison (go fast or go anywhere), but I would take either.

[Mornnb]

I have the Planar and think it is pretty incredible even if it were priced at Leica levels, a total steal at Zeiss ZM prices. But it is also the same size and a smidgen lighter than the Summicron, more so in chrome. 

 

But many of their other lenses are a bit to quite a bit larger than their Leica counterparts so that can play well into the equation. A great example of this is the new 35mm 1.4, it is pretty big for an M lens and the Leica version even in FLE is a good bit smaller. 

 

 

The 35mm Distagon compared to the Summilux FLE and Summilux ASPH.

The image quality of all these lenses is quite comparable. However the Distagon has absolutely zero focus shift compared to the minimal focus shift of the FLE, and slightly smoother bokeh.

 

Carl Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 size comparison:                                        On camera (M240)                               Versus Leica Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH Versus Leica Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH-FLE by Hari Subramanyam, on Flickr

[uhoh7]

The zm 28 is the real weak link in the entire line. The Leica options, both f/2 and f/2.8 are clearly better.

 

In fact there are no options which beat the Leicas in terms of pure performance at 28mm

 

Which is better, Leica or Zeiss? To my mind it's obvious the Leicas are better: how much depends on the FL.

 

As noted above the really impressive Zeiss M glass is 1/3 too big and heavy:  ZM 15, ZM18, ZM35/1.4 and the 85/2. The Planar is a very nice lens, excellent, but there are at least three modern Leica 50s I would grab before the planar.

 

My frontline daylight 35 is ZM 35/2, which is very very fine lens, as is C-biogon, but the Cron and Lux 35s are fantastic, are certainly not "beaten" by any Zeiss lenses.

 

As to build there is no contest. The Leica builds are far far better, despite annoying tendencies of 28 cron and 21 SEM to need a internal tightening every once in awhile. The Leica "wobble" LOL.

 

Leica builds their own lenses in their own factories. Zeiss farms it out to Cosina: I love Cosina, but come on, it's not the same.

 

I find the ZM18 and ZM 35/2 so good I lust for nothing else in daylight. TY G for Zeiss and great alternatives. But even at those FLs, if I had a 18SEM or 35 Cron ASPH, I'd likely grab them first.

 

How about the "looks" of Leica and Zeiss? Again, I will give this to Leica by a good margin, just based on my own experience. Obviously, in reality the individual lenses vary greatly, but I do notice the warmer and smoother Leica palette.

 

In a contest for the "best", price is moot, but handling and build not so much. In these categories it's not close, when I examine my Leica and Zeiss glass.

 

But the Zeiss lenses are so nice I can understand why they have many fans  But without Leica, remember, there would be none of these great choices, since Zeiss is too chicken to make a digital M!!

 

Untitled by unoh7, on Flickr

[flyalf]

Without defining what "better" means, that is the evaluation criteria any lens could be proven to be better than any other lens. So all employees kept their job and lived happiliy ever after.

 

The moral being that discussions about "better" is meaningless without defining what is meant by "better".

[lct]

Better means more resolution, less distortion, less chromatic aberration, less vigneting, less focus shift, less flare, less VF blockage, less bulk and other objective criteria if any. The rest is subjectivity.

[edwardkaraa]

Charlie, curiously enough, it is the 35mm FL that is really Leica's weakness, in terms of pure performance regardless of size and weight. The cron has focus shift and a huge zone B dip. The lux is similar though a bit better. Probably the best Leica 35 is the summarit All Zeiss options C-Biogon, Biogon, and Distagon outperform the Leicas. This is of course not applicable to other FL. But anyhow every lens has strengths and weaknesses. It's up to the buyer to decide what is important to him/her.

[MarkP]

 

Charlie, curiously enough, it is the 35mm FL that is really Leica's weakness, in terms of pure performance regardless of size and weight. The cron has focus shift and a huge zone B dip. The lux is similar though a bit better. Probably the best Leica 35 is the Summarit.

 

But the Summarit has really mushy corners (no, not at a pixel-peeping level) so everything is a compromise, at least until Leica releases the outrageously priced no-compromise 2.0/35 APO-Summicron-M ASPH    (you heard it here first   ).

[edwardkaraa]

But the Summarit has really mushy corners (no, not at a pixel-peeping level) so everything is a compromise, at least until Leica releases the outrageously priced no-compromise 2.0/35 APO-Summicron-M ASPH (you heard it here first ).

LOL

That would be actually great

The summarit corners are mushy but there is no zone B dip. I personally prefer it this way. A traditional bell shaped MTF. I was never a big fan of the high center/corner performance and weak zone B which is where normally the most important parts of the image are.

 

PS. Sorry I was wrong the summarit does have the zone B dip, like the others. My bad.

[MarkP]

LOL

That would be actually great

 

 

Indeed it would but imagine the price   .

There would be no LOL at that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[edwardkaraa]

Yes but it would be the most perfect 35 with no compromises. I hope it doesn't have flare issues though

[Mornnb]

But the Summarit has really mushy corners (no, not at a pixel-peeping level) so everything is a compromise, at least until Leica releases the outrageously priced no-compromise 2.0/35 APO-Summicron-M ASPH    (you heard it here first   ).

 

The Summarit 35 is very compact, has the most intense contrast and very accurate colour rendition. Because of the intense contrast it is my go to lens for digital black and white and for street photography.

However I find it's resolution and corner performance to be relatively week, hence I avoid it for landscape work, the Summilux or Distagon does a better job there.