asiafish Posted June 21, 2015 Share #181 Posted June 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) There is a difference in build quality, and differences in optical philosophy. Leica and Zeiss have different priorities when designing a lens. I generally prefer Leica lenses, but there are exceptions, such as the Zeiss 50 Sonnar, which is magical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 21, 2015 Posted June 21, 2015 Hi asiafish, Take a look here Leica / Zeiss: Who is better?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stephen.w Posted June 21, 2015 Share #182 Posted June 21, 2015 I look at my ZM as disposable. They cost 1/3 the price of the equivalent Leica. The other day I bought the lovely, diminutive ZM 35 2.8 lens. The sales assistant helping me encouragingly referred to it as an 'investment lens'. It's worth bearing in mind that that's how 99% of the world see spending $900 (equiv) on a piece of photographic equipment. This place really does sometimes feel like bizarro-world. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 21, 2015 Share #183 Posted June 21, 2015 Haha yes the little ZM 35/2.8 is indeed a beauty and does not feel as "cheap" as my otherwise excellent Summarit 35/2.5. A very contrasty lens for sure but a bargain IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 21, 2015 Share #184 Posted June 21, 2015 The other day I bought the lovely, diminutive ZM 35 2.8 lens. The sales assistant helping me encouragingly referred to it as an 'investment lens'. It's worth bearing in mind that that's how 99% of the world see spending $900 (equiv) on a piece of photographic equipment. This place really does sometimes feel like bizarro-world.Where did you get this lens for 900$? I bought mine last month for 675$ brand new! Still I can buy 3 Zeiss lenses for the price of one Leica so two of them are disposable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen.w Posted June 21, 2015 Share #185 Posted June 21, 2015 Where did you get this lens for 900$? I bought mine last month for 675$ brand new! Still I can buy 3 Zeiss lenses for the price of one Leica so two of them are disposable I was actually just quoting the B&H price as a reference point - just did the conversion for what I paid, which is $750. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted June 21, 2015 Share #186 Posted June 21, 2015 The sales assistant helping me encouragingly referred to it as an 'investment lens'. In the culture of my former company, a business consultancy, we referred to any project that appeared likely from the outset to lose money as an "investment" or, more colloquially, as a "jam tomorrow" scheme. Behind all such notions is the suspicion that personal vanity is fighting a winning battle over financial analysis Edit: This is not directed at you, Stephen; you clearly recognise the risks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted June 21, 2015 Share #187 Posted June 21, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have no problem tossing the lens in the garbage and getting a new one. And your garbage-can GPS coordinates are ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 21, 2015 Share #188 Posted June 21, 2015 And your garbage-can GPS coordinates are ? Haha, it's still empty so far I will make sure to let you know whenever I plan to fill it up though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwardkaraa Posted June 21, 2015 Share #189 Posted June 21, 2015 I was actually just quoting the B&H price as a reference point - just did the conversion for what I paid, which is $750. That sounds more reasonable. The ZM are very cheap at this time in Thailand, probably because the sales are not up to the agent's expectations. They're trying to move their stock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asiafish Posted June 22, 2015 Share #190 Posted June 22, 2015 Haha yes the little ZM 35/2.8 is indeed a beauty and does not feel as "cheap" as my otherwise excellent Summarit 35/2.5. A very contrasty lens for sure but a bargain IMO. I have the 35/2.5 Summarit and while built to less of a standard than my 50/2 Summicron, I wouldn't call it in any way cheap. It is built at least equal to the ZM lenses I've used (50 C Sonnar and 50 Planar), and it is definitely an "investment lens" for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 22, 2015 Share #191 Posted June 22, 2015 My Summarit 35/2.5 (no experience with the current f/2.4 version) feels "cheaper" in that its focus ring is too lose compared to that of the ZM 35/2.8 which is almost perfect for me, better so than the Summilux 35/1.4 FLE from this viewpoint. The plastic focus tab of the Summarit 35/2.5 feels cheaper as well but it is a detail and i do consider the latter an excellent lens anyway, at least on APS bodies as its performances in borders and corners could be better compared to the ZM 35/2.8. YMMV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted June 22, 2015 Share #192 Posted June 22, 2015 My Summarit 35/2.5 (no experience with the current f/2.4 version) feels "cheaper" in that its focus ring is too lose compared to that of the ZM 35/2.8 which is almost perfect for me, better so than the Summilux 35/1.4 FLE from this viewpoint. The Summarit 35 is truly a perfect street photography lens. Small, compact. The front element is tiny, it looks completely harmless to people. It is a very high contrast lens, more so than the Summicron. Which makes for rich toned black and white street images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted June 22, 2015 Share #193 Posted June 22, 2015 FWIW for the rather small minority of us who still shoot transparencies: My new Zeiss 1.4/35 ZN provides superlative results on Astia (I still have some in the freezer), Provia and Velvia. I can clearly spot the differences among the three, both via loupe/light table and projection. I have compared slides taken with the 1.4/35 against slides previously taken with my 50 Lux ASPH, 35 Lux (pre ASPH) and 28 Elmarit ASPH, and using the same films. IMO, this lens gives me everything I had hoped for. It's not a dramatic improvement, but provides better contrast and what I prefer to call a better rendition of the color spectrum in the Astia and Provia. And it does it without having to sweat out focus shift (the reason I finally sold my 35Lux pre-ASPH last year). Yes, it does intrude into the lower right of the viewfinder - - - but so do several other highly-rated lenses. Larger? Yes, but I quickly forgot about both the size and relative weight when actually shooting. Fondlers may notice, but shooters probably won't I've been shooting trannies since 1939, with Argus, Contax, Leica and Zeiss ZI cameras and lenses. This lens truly is a keeper. Just my very unscientific two cents. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiepphotog Posted June 22, 2015 Share #194 Posted June 22, 2015 After handling the some the Leica M-mount and R-mount lenses, I have to say my ZM 15 still has the better construction. The IF design of Zeiss has just the right amount of resistance and the aperture ring detention has a much nicer feel than any Leica I have used. However, it is a big oversight for Zeiss not to include RF coupling. It should be a more popular lens, definitely the equal of the like of SEM 18, 21 and Elmar 24 in term of sharpness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeeper Posted June 22, 2015 Share #195 Posted June 22, 2015 I have the Biogon 25. Fantastic lens. I also have a Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron (old version). Both have spectacular build quality. Whereas I need to ship my Summilux 50 back to Leica every 2 years to fix the wobble for $250. I had the exact same problem with my 75 'cron APO. The Voigtlander has a touch of wobble, but it feels... how do I put this?... not bad. More like a bit of smooth lateral play. The Leicas had more of a "thunk" rattle that drove me nuts. It felt like the lens was slowly falling apart. That being said, I have handled BerndReini's ZM lens and there was definitely some sticky points in the focus turn. I don't know if it's because he left it in the bag for ages and it created a rut in the grease, but it was definitely there. I never had that problem on either of my own Japanese lenses. So is it worth it to throw money at Leica? Sure. I just bought a 50 'lux ASPH. But I've grown to have an open mind about the products from other manufacturers. I'm really loving the Voigtlander these days (minus the .9 M close focus.) It has a classic rendering while being very sharp. But there's nothing wrong with subsidizing a company that keeps rangefinders alive. That's why I try not to cringe when people shell out for the Lenny Kravitz edition - it all keeps the company alive so we can keep doing what we do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 22, 2015 Share #196 Posted June 22, 2015 Look at Leica's production figures back when they hand fitted the clockworks. Amazing, is it not? Do we read of fatal manufacturing errors of the M3? Today a tech picks parts from bins of various dimensions to make fit. Mechanics are easy. Digital introduces a swarm of complications. Something in firmware development is fundamentally broken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.