Leica / Zeiss: Who is better?

[Winedemonium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I greatly admire both companies. All lens designs are compromises of one sort or another - priorities must be chosen.

 

Lenses like the the 50 APO demonstrate that Leica can produce superb optics in a highly compact form. The compromise is budget - the lens is very expensive, and size (it may have cost less and flared less if it was bigger). 

 

Lenses like the Otus 85mm how that Zeiss can hit the ball out of the park optically, and in build quality, which is flawless. The compromises are size (its enormous), lack of AF (which for DSLR lenses at this level might be considered a compromise), and price. 

 

Pick your constraints.

 

To compare the two firms requires that you compare their ability to perform to identical briefs. I'm not sure that's ever happened. Perhaps the cine lens range is where the two companies compete most directly, but I know nothing about those lenses. I'd be interested in an expert view, out of interest, on those.

 

As others have said, colour and rendering taste comes into play too.

 

I think Zeiss's decision to abandon their ZM digital camera was a good one. They make lenses for any viable mount. That's a good focus. It's allowed them to take a share of the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji etc space, without having to play the 6-month obsolescence camera body R&D game. 

 

Anyway, I have and use lenses by both firms, and I'm glad both are out there making great glass.

[Advertisement]

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

[Rick in CO]

We can all agree that, as Leica users, we benefit from the Leica-Zeiss (& Voigtlander) competition.  I am happy to hear that is friendly - which Biergarten is that?  I would love to buy a round just to sit and listen!

About comparing MTF curves; Erwin Puts says that published Leica MTF curves are calculated, whereas the Zeiss are the measured data.  Big difference that defies a direct comparison.

[hiepphotog]

I greatly admire both companies. All lens designs are compromises of one sort or another - priorities must be chosen.

 

Lenses like the the 50 APO demonstrate that Leica can produce superb optics in a highly compact form. The compromise is budget - the lens is very expensive, and size (it may have cost less and flared less if it was bigger). 

 

Lenses like the Otus 85mm how that Zeiss can hit the ball out of the park optically, and in build quality, which is flawless. The compromises are size (its enormous), lack of AF (which for DSLR lenses at this level might be considered a compromise), and price. 

 

Pick your constraints.

 

To compare the two firms requires that you compare their ability to perform to identical briefs. I'm not sure that's ever happened. Perhaps the cine lens range is where the two companies compete most directly, but I know nothing about those lenses. I'd be interested in an expert view, out of interest, on those.

 

As others have said, colour and rendering taste comes into play too.

 

I think Zeiss's decision to abandon their ZM digital camera was a good one. They make lenses for any viable mount. That's a good focus. It's allowed them to take a share of the Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji etc space, without having to play the 6-month obsolescence camera body R&D game. 

 

Anyway, I have and use lenses by both firms, and I'm glad both are out there making great glass.

 

IMO, the problem with the current two Otii is the unnecessarily massive weight and size for a 50 and 85 focal length. I think this family would make more sense for a tripod-bound type of lens, a wide to ultra wide angle, tilt-shift with large aperture, or long telephoto (say a 200/2). And the occasional hand-holding would warrant more use for such a lens. I would love to see more lens like the recent ZM 35/1.4, modern RF design.

[edwardkaraa]

A member on FM who is an optical scientist and well involved in MTF measuring techniques had mentioned a few years back that leica does measure their lens MTF using a Zeiss bench. However he said the light used is more favorable and the results with a full spectrum light would give less good results, while Zeiss it seems are the most honest about the real performance of their lenses as they measure 5 random lenses and average the results using full spectrum light.

From my own correspondence with Zeiss, a lens has to be within 10% of the theoretical MTF values in order to pass the QC.

[jaapv]

We can all agree that, as Leica users, we benefit from the Leica-Zeiss (& Voigtlander) competition.  I am happy to hear that is friendly - which Biergarten is that?  I would love to buy a round just to sit and listen!

About comparing MTF curves; Erwin Puts says that published Leica MTF curves are calculated, whereas the Zeiss are the measured data.  Big difference that defies a direct comparison.

I was indeed parroting Erwin

[Winedemonium]

IMO, the problem with the current two Otii is the unnecessarily massive weight and size for a 50 and 85 focal length. I think this family would make more sense for a tripod-bound type of lens, a wide to ultra wide angle, tilt-shift with large aperture, or long telephoto (say a 200/2). And the occasional hand-holding would warrant more use for such a lens. I would love to see more lens like the recent ZM 35/1.4, modern RF design.

 

I have both the 55mm and 85mm Otus lenses, as well as some ZF.2 lenses. That, and the uncompromising demand of the Nikon D810 sensor (Canon's new 50+ MP sensor will be even more challenging) mean that for the most part that is exactly how I treat this rig -- I treat it as if it is a medium format mostly-for-tripod kit. With that mentality, I enjoy using it. 

 

I'm not sure I am physically up to the task of walking around taking everyday family and environmental photographs with that rig.

 

It's one of the reasons I love the Leica M system so much - quality within the 'Barnack' form factor and weight. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As far as I know it is Erwin Puts who uses the Zeiss facilities for his measurements. If anything, these things must have been updated in the recent move.

[Cuthbert]

There are quite a few mixed marriages between Leica and Zeiss employees in the area and the staff go to the same Biergarten. Rivalry in business is one thing, enmity on a personal level, or even between companies, is another.

 

I assume you guys don't work in an engineering department of a private sector: between us we call our German competitors "the Enemy" or "the bad guys"...sometimes we also label that way people of our same company but from another organisation. When I was in Ferrari of course the team who was making the central engine car was "the Enemy".

 

Of course you have to some kind of sense of humour to appreciate that.

[edwardkaraa]

As far as I know it is Erwin Puts who uses the Zeiss facilities for his measurements. If anything, these things must have been updated in the recent move.

To be honest I am quite disappointed to learn that Leica MTF are calculated not measured. This said the calculations, though theoretical, seem to be realistic and honest, unlike the Japanese manufacturers, especially Sony, who do not factor in diffraction in their calculations. Sony's MTF at f/8 are plain ridiculous.

[pgk]

To be honest I am quite disappointed to learn that Leica MTF are calculated not measured. This said the calculations, though theoretical, seem to be realistic and honest, unlike the Japanese manufacturers, especially Sony, who do not factor in diffraction in their calculations. Sony's MTF at f/8 are plain ridiculous.

Having tested 'retail' lenses a long time ago, there is variation. I can see the logic of either calculated and/or random samples measured. Calculated at least serves as a baseline yardstick as I would suspect that measured would require a significant number of samples to be really meaningful. And, at the end of the day, neither will tell you about the actual performance of your own lens (not even if you happen to get a measured lens as its data will have been averaged with others).

 

To be blunt ALL the lenses we are discussing are 'fit for purpose'. Whether they satisfy individual desires is something else and each of us has to decide where our own boundary of 'performance' requirements lies. Very few photographs should be limited by the performance of Zeiss, Leica or any 'quality' lens these days and are much more likely to be limited by technique. The forum does seem to have threads in which nuance of performance overshadows usability (post 86 refers) which to me is actually a far more important factor (and that said, I simply don't see many of the 'faults'/flaws' commented on in some posts.

[james.liam]

To be blunt ALL the lenses we are discussing are 'fit for purpose'. Whether they satisfy individual desires is something else and each of us has to decide where our own boundary of 'performance' requirements lies. Very few photographs should be limited by the performance of Zeiss, Leica or any 'quality' lens these days and are much more likely to be limited by technique. The forum does seem to have threads in which nuance of performance overshladows usability (post 86 refers) which to me is actually a far more important factor (and that said, I simply don't see many of the 'faults'/flaws' commented on in some posts.

Yes and no. If we're speaking of any M digital, you're on the mark. An exception might be argued for the Monochroms.

36-50MP sensors? Not so certain. Resolving power begins to intrude upon exceptional technique as the most critical factor assuring  optimal results. As noted earlier, the D800 swept away a raft of great Nikkors not up to the demanding sensor. Leica glass has generally outperformed the demands of sensors and film so there's likely some extra leeway. Same can be said for most Zeiss ZM optics, but sadly not so for ZF series lenses on higher rez cameras. 

[Peter Branch]

Some years ago Rodenstock used to publish the MTF curves for their lenses.  They showed three values, the theoretical maximum contrast, the mean production contrast achieved & the minimum acceptable contrast value for QC release.  All very honest and commendable. 

[pgk]

Yes and no. If we're speaking of any M digital, you're on the mark. An exception might be argued for the Monochroms.

36-50MP sensors? Not so certain. Resolving power begins to intrude upon exceptional technique as the most critical factor assuring  optimal results. As noted earlier, the D800 swept away a raft of great Nikkors not up to the demanding sensor. Leica glass has generally outperformed the demands of sensors and film so there's likely some extra leeway. Same can be said for most Zeiss ZM optics, but sadly not so for ZF series lenses on higher rez cameras. 

In over 30 years of professional photography I have never lost an image sale due to technical imitations in the lens any image was taken on. We are arguing pure theoretical technicalities here. Certainly one needs to choose the right tool for the job but the difference in fink image terms between a reasonable and an exceptional lens is no longer that great (and very few absolutely NEED to exploit them - and probably most are internet guru lens testers at that! As I have repeatedly said, if you want to ultimate output in terms of resolution, whatever, then fine, but there are more important reasons for buying equipment than pure technical specs as far as I am concerned. I said 'fit for purpose' and I'm happy to stand by it.

[Peter Kilmister]

In over 30 years of professional photography I have never lost an image sale due to technical imitations in the lens any image was taken on. We are arguing pure theoretical technicalities here. Certainly one needs to choose the right tool for the job but the difference in fink image terms between a reasonable and an exceptional lens is no longer that great (and very few absolutely NEED to exploit them - and probably most are internet guru lens testers at that! As I have repeatedly said, if you want to ultimate output in terms of resolution, whatever, then fine, but there are more important reasons for buying equipment than pure technical specs as far as I am concerned. I said 'fit for purpose' and I'm happy to stand by it.

Excellent summary. Thank you. :-)

[cpclee]

I'd be delighted if Leica returns to the dimensions of the original M2/3/4/6 (non-TTL) with their next round of digital M bodies. 

 

Used to be that any small increase in the size / weight of M bodies or lenses was considered a big negative.  But today's M system attracts very different demographics.  People don't seem to shun big / heavy any more, and hence we see these big 1.4 wide angles and even more massive ZM lenses.

 

I have both the 55mm and 85mm Otus lenses, as well as some ZF.2 lenses. That, and the uncompromising demand of the Nikon D810 sensor (Canon's new 50+ MP sensor will be even more challenging) mean that for the most part that is exactly how I treat this rig -- I treat it as if it is a medium format mostly-for-tripod kit. With that mentality, I enjoy using it. 

 

I'm not sure I am physically up to the task of walking around taking everyday family and environmental photographs with that rig.

 

It's one of the reasons I love the Leica M system so much - quality within the 'Barnack' form factor and weight. 

 

Otus v APO.jpg

[jaapv]

 

 

I assume you guys don't work in an engineering department of a private sector: between us we call our German competitors "the Enemy" or "the bad guys"...sometimes we also label that way people of our same company but from another organisation. When I was in Ferrari of course the team who was making the central engine car was "the Enemy".

 

Of course you have to some kind of sense of humour to appreciate that.

I see quite a few divorces coming up in Hessen....

[Mornnb]

IMO, the problem with the current two Otii is the unnecessarily massive weight and size for a 50 and 85 focal length. I think this family would make more sense for a tripod-bound type of lens, a wide to ultra wide angle, tilt-shift with large aperture, or long telephoto (say a 200/2). And the occasional hand-holding would warrant more use for such a lens. I would love to see more lens like the recent ZM 35/1.4, modern RF design.

 

Yes, however lenses of this size are not unusual for DSLRs. The Otus is about the size of the 70-200mm 2.8 zooms.

 

 

 

 

[Mornnb]

I'd be delighted if Leica returns to the dimensions of the original M2/3/4/6 (non-TTL) with their next round of digital M bodies. 

 

Used to be that any small increase in the size / weight of M bodies or lenses was considered a big negative.  But today's M system attracts very different demographics.  People don't seem to shun big / heavy any more, and hence we see these big 1.4 wide angles and even more massive ZM lenses.

 

The problem is there's no smaller alternatives to the digital M bodies, unless you look at Sony A7 bodies.

I expect they will get smaller, indeed it's rumoured the next Leica M will replace the mechanical viewfinder with a digital EVF overlay, in order to reduce space and size of the Leica M. Doing the Rangefinder electronically reduces the complexity.

 

 

Also, you're wrong. People do shun big / heavy and this is the reason for the uptake in the popularity of mirrorless. However, people have come to expect that image quality means bigger lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[james.liam]

In over 30 years of professional photography I have never lost an image sale due to technical imitations in the lens any image was taken on. We are arguing pure theoretical technicalities here. Certainly one needs to choose the right tool for the job but the difference in fink image terms between a reasonable and an exceptional lens is no longer that great (and very few absolutely NEED to exploit them - and probably most are internet guru lens testers at that! As I have repeatedly said, if you want to ultimate output in terms of resolution, whatever, then fine, but there are more important reasons for buying equipment than pure technical specs as far as I am concerned. I said 'fit for purpose' and I'm happy to stand by it.

 

Not quite certain how your comments relate to mine, though I agree with all your points.

My point was that once you reach a technological tipping point, as it seems these high MP sensors are crossing, technique alone does not suffice. When a commercial client requires large, data-rich and malleable files, only a studio and tripod-bound MF or D8***/50 MP 5D will deliver for these demanding but specific instances. A pro I know well never walks out of his home or studio without his M6, film scanned on a Nikon CoolScan 9000 hooked up to a 15 year old Mac. His imagery is fabulous.

[rodluvan]

IMO, the problem with the current two Otii is the unnecessarily massive weight and size for a 50 and 85 focal length. I think this family would make more sense for a tripod-bound type of lens, a wide to ultra wide angle, tilt-shift with large aperture, or long telephoto (say a 200/2). And the occasional hand-holding would warrant more use for such a lens. I would love to see more lens like the recent ZM 35/1.4, modern RF design.

what are you assuming is unnecessary about the weight and size given the iq?