Leica / Zeiss: Who is better?

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which is better?

 

Laica.

no, Zeiss.

wait........maybe Leica.

Zeiss.

wait........what lens were we talking about?

[pgk]

Which is better?

Actually it was 'who'  , and oddly enough the original question was asked by a gentleman/woman who has gone strangely silent since posting (on his/her day of registration) the somewhat controversial question. Odd  isn't it?

[hiepphotog]

ah, so you're not saying the weight and size is unnecessary, but unfortunate and that which is unnecessary is a lens performing that well in those focal-lengths'. 

 

You are taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm not opposed to high performance 50 and 85. But by doing so by making it much much larger and heavier than usual would hinder the usability of these lenses tremendously. 50 and 85 are often meant to be handheld, carrying everywhere kind of deal. Admittedly, I was very excited when the Otus 55 came out, but then the excitement soon passed due to the very reason of usability. The 85 generates even less excitement. Personally, I'm looking forward to the Otus WA/UWA.

[wilfredo]

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?

You've awakened my curiosity.  I've used Zeiss lenses on my M8, when I had one, no complaints.  I would like to try them on my MMI.

[rodluvan]

You are taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm not opposed to high performance 50 and 85. But by doing so by making it much much larger and heavier than usual would hinder the usability of these lenses tremendously. 50 and 85 are often meant to be handheld, carrying everywhere kind of deal. Admittedly, I was very excited when the Otus 55 came out, but then the excitement soon passed due to the very reason of usability. The 85 generates even less excitement. Personally, I'm looking forward to the Otus WA/UWA.

 

I'm specifically trying not to put words in your mouth or take anything out of context, which is why I break it down and ask you what you mean. 

 

you said in your original post that:

 the problem with the current two Otii is the unnecessarily massive weight and size for a 50 and 85 focal length

 

 

 

get this straight; there is nothing 'unnecessary' about the size and weight if you expect that kind of iq given today's technology and cost-cap, which is why I asked if you were referring to something else when using the word 'unnecessary'. you reply with a non sequitur (as far as I can tell)

The usability for a 50 or an 85 focal length.

 

 

so what is "unnecessary about the size and weight is the usability for a 50 and 85 focal length"? sorry, but I don't understand what this means.

 

are you sure you're not conflating the word 'unnecessary' with the word 'unfortunate' (as I suggested previously, but you denied saying I took things out of context)?

 

on a side-note, if you think the existing otii are big and heavy, what do you think a presumed future WA/UWA otus will result in? hardly a smaller lens (unless it is much slower).

[jankap]

Such a question and then already over 120 posts.

Jan

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Endless subject. I still remind the first time i held a Contarex in my child's hands. What a splendid monster!. Zeiss lenses were bulkier than those of the Leicaflex then if memory serves but i was more impressed by the former.

[hiepphotog]

I'm specifically trying not to put words in your mouth or take anything out of context, which is why I break it down and ask you what you mean. 

 

you said in your original post that:

 

get this straight; there is nothing 'unnecessary' about the size and weight if you expect that kind of iq given today's technology and cost-cap, which is why I asked if you were referring to something else when using the word 'unnecessary'. you reply with a non sequitur (as far as I can tell)

 

so what is "unnecessary about the size and weight is the usability for a 50 and 85 focal length"? sorry, but I don't understand what this means.

 

are you sure you're not conflating the word 'unnecessary' with the word 'unfortunate' (as I suggested previously, but you denied saying I took things out of context)?

 

on a side-note, if you think the existing otii are big and heavy, what do you think a presumed future WA/UWA otus will result in? hardly a smaller lens (unless it is much slower).

 

I think this is going on long enough and not pertinent to the OT. In short, I would buy the Otus ultra-fast WA/UWA if it outperforms everything out there, especially coma WO, because I will likely use it on a tripod. On the other hand, I will not get the Otus 55 and 85 because these are the focal I would like to handhold all the time and bring with me everywhere. So I bought the Leica 50 AA in place of the Otus instead.

[Herr Barnack]

Such a question and then already over 120 posts.

Jan

 

Sometimes I think that this is not a Leica forum but rather a debate forum, with Leica simply serving as the bone of contention.  As such, we are indeed fortunate to be blessed with the presence of many Master Debaters. 

[LeicaFFM]

Sometimes I think that this is not a Leica forum but rather a debate forum, with Leica simply serving as the bone of contention.  As such, we are indeed fortunate to be blessed with the presence of many Master Debaters. 

 

Trust me... this is nothing compared to the German Leica forum. There, it feels like a political forum.

[pgk]

Sometimes I think that this is not a Leica forum but rather a debate forum.....

There are no definitive answers if the question is not well enough defined, and questions rarely are. In this case (although the originator seems to have vanished) the word 'better' was not defined so its impossible to answer, so it simply becomes a debate with participants offering their own definitions of better (when not wandering off the subject, which is often more interesting anyway). What did you expect - for people on the Leica forum to determine Zeiss to be better? I have my doubts .....

[jankap]

Zeiss has vanished from the production of cameras. That is one point in favor of Leica.

Jan

[rodluvan]

to delve into the subject at hand; without a shadow of a doubt Zeiss is the more professional and sincere optical company. be it from film making to space industry to every other venture where you need extreme optical know how, zeiss is where you turn.

Obviously leica has some great knowledge too, but they've succumbed to vanity projects and wannabe Bressons with too much money and not a Leica critical bone in their body.

 

it's a great shame really as they have such great history

[jdlaing]

I've seen some pretty ridiculous statements but that one is in the top ten. 

[pop]

That´s funny.

 

 

to delve into the subject at hand; without a shadow of a doubt Zeiss is the more professional and sincere optical company. be it from film making to space industry to every other venture where you need extreme optical know how, zeiss is where you turn.

Obviously leica has some great knowledge too, but they've succumbed to vanity projects and wannabe Bressons with too much money and not a Leica critical bone in their body.

 

it's a great shame really as they have such great history

 

Quite, and I hope I won't find any bones in my leica bodies, either.

[bernie.lcf]

[...]

 

 

I've seen some pretty ridiculous statements but that one is in the top ten. 

 

Yes, I would say so as well.

 

 

Leica and Zeiss are the only two remaining German optical companies of any relevance. Both have delivered excellent technologies and products for more than 100 years. Both continue to deliver excellent products, but only Leica retains a production facility in Germany where products are still hand made.

 

Zeiss has meanwhile outsourced its entire production capacity to Asia. Zeiss lenses are now made by Cosina and if you are very critical, you might be persuaded to claim that Zeiss lenses are merely Voigtländer lenses on steroids.

 

While Leica continues to product new optical designs (now managed by Peter Karbe), I have not seen a lot of really revolutionary things from Zeiss. Most of their stuff is an alteration of some old design (Distagon, Planar, etc.) optimized for today's expectations and certainly without Leica's fetish for keeping things small (see: Otus).

 

To claim that Leica is merely outputting "vanity products" is a very emotional comment of bitterness by someone who clearly has some unhealthy hatred towards something that's only a company producing products. 

[lct]

Zeiss lenses used to be as expensive as Leica's in the past and some of them are still so when they are made in Germany like the  superb ZM 15/2.8. Just vanity projects for wannabe Kappas i suspect.

[rsh]

Both companies produce great optics.  I have never owned a Zeiss lens, so I have no personal basis of comparison. The fact that ZM lenses are manufactured by Cosina has little bearing on the final product as I am certain that Zeiss maintains some sort of QC agreement.  This lenses are less expensive because they are not produced in Germany.  The ZM 85 and the 15 are produced in Germany and are nearly as expensive as the Leica Lenses.  I own all Leica Lenses mostly because of the fact that I want Leica Lenses on my Leicas.

[rodluvan]

Yes, I would say so as well.

 

 

Leica and Zeiss are the only two remaining German optical companies of any relevance. Both have delivered excellent technologies and products for more than 100 years. Both continue to deliver excellent products, but only Leica retains a production facility in Germany where products are still hand made.

 

Zeiss has meanwhile outsourced its entire production capacity to Asia. Zeiss lenses are now made by Cosina and if you are very critical, you might be persuaded to claim that Zeiss lenses are merely Voigtländer lenses on steroids.

 

While Leica continues to product new optical designs (now managed by Peter Karbe), I have not seen a lot of really revolutionary things from Zeiss. Most of their stuff is an alteration of some old design (Distagon, Planar, etc.) optimized for today's expectations and certainly without Leica's fetish for keeping things small (see: Otus).

 

To claim that Leica is merely outputting "vanity products" is a very emotional comment of bitterness by someone who clearly has some unhealthy hatred towards something that's only a company producing products. 

 

interesting rant

let me just point a few things out (not that facts or reason will sway you)

 

Zeiss have production facilities in Germany. the entire Otus family and (as mentioned above) the 2.8/15 is manufactured there

nothing is 'handmade' in either Leica nor Zeiss. They are both hand-assembled, but from parts that are machined. the machines are not made by, or unique to, either Leica nor Zeiss. they are sold all over the world (like Europe or Asia)

 

where lenses are manufactured and assembled have no impact on quality. design decisions and quality control has (I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, that you're not suggesting that Japanese workers are less skilled and meticulous than german, that would be laughable, quite frankly)

 

Leica sure makes small and I applaud this, but comparing an M-lens to a SLR-lens (otus) is just silly, no? why not compare to the ZM-line to look a bit more earnest? anyway, I will not defend the Otus line as I was about to mention in my previous post, it too, shows sign of complete abandonment of reason and practicality, catering only to pixel-peeper and forum-warriors. I have harshly criticised this on numerous occasions.

 

my view of Leica as of late is one where the marketing section seems to run things. one silly release after another while busy rubbing shoulders with the social and economical elite bolstered by Leica aficionados buying completely silly digital cameras like X and T for 5-10x the price of comparable cameras. news-flash, it doesn't matter if the quality is second to none or that the body made of exposed aluminium, no digital device have a lifetime of more than a few years.

 

 

and finally; bitterness and hatred? eh, ok ...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bernie.lcf]

interesting rant

let me just point a few things out (not that facts or reason will sway you)

 

 

Based on Zeiss' own  information the ZM 15 is the only lens that is still made in Germany.

 

This is not about the quality of the product although Cosina is known to have quite significant production tolerance as can be seen with their Voigtländer VM lenses.

This is about the value chain and where people are employed.

I am European and wherever I can, I prefer to buy local so that the majority of the value chain is kept in Europe. This is more expensive, but I can afford the price and I am happy to pay it - as I am happy to eat local produce and meat from animals that had some meaningful life.

 

Your mileage may vary and frankly, people can do what they want. I am not a tree hugger fanatic.

 

Personally, I make a point in supporting companies (through being a consumer of their products) that take an effort in employing people in Europe, paying them fair wage and avoiding the mass transfer of employees, assets and knowledge to low income regions.

 

 

Regarding the size, by the way, the Otus is the most prominent example of achieving excellence by ignoring some design decisions. But if you prefer to compare M-mount lenses, just compare a Summilux 35 with the ZM 35/1.4.