How do Leica lenses compare to full frame SLR Zeiss lenses?

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm currently in the midst of an exciting and adventurous time when it comes to my photography. I've been shooting professionally for about a decade now and never really had the chance to be a "gear guy" as my work kept me so busy, but recently when my Nikon D800 gave out and came time to upgrade to the new D850, I embarked on a gear journey which has lead me all over the place. I've always kept a couple film cameras around and currently have a Pentax 67II and Hasselblad 503cw (and soon Leica M-A)- I just love the aesthetic of film so much. This gear journey lead me to pick up a Nikon 105 1.4E ED, which I'd read so many great things about, but the truth is that I've been underwhelmed with the lens. That said, the fellow who sold it to me kept raving on about the Zeiss ZF2 135 2 and so a few days ago I picked up my own copy of the lens and have been utterly blown away by it. I've never seen my images pop in a way they do with the Zeiss. The bokeh, contrast, and sharpness are just on a whole other planet when compared to the Nikon lenses I'm used to. I remember looking down on the camera screen at the first image I shot on the Zeiss and being in disbelief over what a night-and-day update this was to anything I'd ever shot on a Nikon lens. Needless to say, I instantly became a firm believer of Zeiss lenses (which I'd only had experience with previously by way of my Hasselblad 80 2.8- a fine lens, but nowhere near as good as this 135, imo). I plan to sell most of my Nikon glass in order to go "all-in" with Zeiss for my SLR; will be a combination of the Classic/ZF2 stuff, as well as Milvus and perhaps even an Otus or two (the 100mm is the main Otus I want). 

Anyways, the reason I'm posting is that I'm wondering how Leica M-lenses compare to full frame SLR Zeiss lenses? I know that's an absolutely ridiculous question, especially when considering that Zeiss lenses come in an M-mount, but I wonder if they're the same quality/formula as the larger SLR ones. And regardless, I'm just curious how the M-lenses, which I'll soon be buying to go with my M-A, compare optically to something like the Zeiss I'm now familiar with. The 135 2 has really spoiled me for glass and I don't want to go to anything lesser moving forward. 

I know there's many knowledgable folks on this forum, so I eagerly await to hear from you on this topic! 

[Advertisement]

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

[Mark T]

I think they compare well but am no expert. I couldn't pick the difference between any good modern lenses of approximately equivalent focal length and aperture in most pictures. That's just me though. Others will see what they will.

[adan]

It is a little (just a little) bit apples and oranges - because lens design is an art, that depends on a "philosophy of design" - how the designer wants the world to look.

Part of Zeiss's "philosophy" (as you may have noticed, with the 135 f/2.0) is "size is no object - as large as necessary to get the performance we want."

By comparison, Leica, especially for the M system (that being the lenses we're discussing here) has size constraints: has to balance well on the smallish M camera, can't block the viewfinder/rangefinder, has to remain somewhat in line with Oskar Barnack's original goal - "small camera, big pictures." So part of their philosophy is "size is critical - as small as possible while retaining competitive performance."

(Conversely, for the SL system, Leica makes much larger lenses, just like Zeiss. And the new Leica 75mm APO-Noctilux-M-ASPH f/1.2 also pushes the size limit upwards).

True SLRs, of course, require special formulas to allow for the moving mirror. Traditionally, Leitz/Leica wide-angles were better (as well as as smaller) than the "retrofocus" wides that SLRs needed to sit 45mm away from the film while being 21/24/28/35mm in focal length. But at the longer end, a 75 or 90 or 135 has to have a certain physical size, regardless.

Zeiss heavily favors ultimate contrast, as revealed in their pursuit of the famed T* coating. Leica began pursuing Zeiss-like lens contrast about the time they changed their name from Leitz to Leica (1990-ish) - although they've never given their coatings a trade name (no "Nano Crystals", no "T*s). But even the modern (post 1990-design) Leica lenses are still a bit more mellow in rendering - not less fine detail, just a bit more "liquid" in rendering shadows and highlights.

I think you would see an eye-popping difference between Leica M lenses and most Nikkors/Canons, etc. I suspect it will be a subtly different eye-popping difference than one sees with Zeiss ZF/ZE SLR lenses. Not "better/worse" - just different.

Beyond that, it is really a question of specific lenses. From all appearances, the 75 ANMA outperforms the Zeiss 85 f/1.4s. The (massive) Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 outperforms my 1980 Leitz 21mm f/2.8 (which is half the volume) - but the current Leica 21 f/3.4 may outperform both, at half the volume again (but minus 1/2 f/stop). The Zeiss ZM 21mm f/4.5 suffers some on color digital (but that is a technical issue for a different thread). Leica 21/24/28 f/1.4 Summiluxes - nothing to compare in the Zeiss lineups.

Sometimes it is a neck-and-neck race (and has been since 1932). The 50 Summilux non-ASPH outperforms the Zeiss ZM f/1.5 Sonnar (the Sonnar intentionally being a retro 1930s lens updated - but in its time outperformed anything Leitz made), but the Zeiss ZE/ZF 50 f/1.4 Planar probably outperforms that older Summilux as to raw resolution. But the current 50mm Summilux ASPH is probably the best 50mm f/1.4 ever made - and of course the Noctilux f/0.95 is in a class of its own - nothing to compare it with. As is the 50mm APO-Summicron.

The Zeiss 135 f/2.8 Sonnar was neck-and-neck with the Leitz 135 f/4 Tele-Elmar - but beat the Leitz/Leica 135 f/2.8 Elmarits, at least wide-open. But the 135 APO-Telyt f/3.4 took back the lead, and is at least a match to the Zeiss 135 f/2 in most ways except aperture.

The same goes for 16-18-21/24/28/35/75/90 lenses - you'd have to compare them one at a time to the closest available Zeiss SLR lenses. Barring specific comments from other users, I expect it'd be a coin-flip most of the time.

I like and respect Zeiss for the most part, BTW - I used the Contax film SLRs and the quasi-rangefinder G system back in the 1990s (and still shoot film with a Hassy Superwide with Zeiss Biogon 38mm). But once the quirky G AF system drove me to all-manual Leica M's, I haven't felt any need to consider Zeiss lenses for "full-frame" use. Outside of the M's and 6x6, my only "felt need" is for a nice 300-500mm tele - and Zeiss is not playing in that market these days.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by adan

[Viv]

I can't answer this question, never having used Zeiss SLR lenses, but my experience is that Zeiss ZM lenses compare very well with Leica M lenses. And they are a lot cheaper.

[adan]

Just now, Viv said:

And they are a lot cheaper.

Always a significant measure of optics.

[lct]

Hard to generalize but Zeiss lenses are often less prone to flare and transition between in-focus and out-of-focus areas seem shorter i.e. less gradual with them.  

[Viv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, adan said:

Always a significant measure of optics.

Of course it is! The quality/price ratio is always relevant.

[a.noctilux]

White Buffalo,

😉

Don't forget that Leitz/Leica lenses for M had large spread of time, something like sixty years.

Same thing for Zeiss lenses, but your interest is on newer lenses, so let's compare only newer Zeiss/Leica lenses.

Two things can happen among this time :

- progress in lens technology, but for me not always in the good way for some kind of photography, computing, incorporating asph. lenses is one of them along with floating elements

which the two companies use for some time now

- philosophy of "how to record the world" can change just in Leica we see Mandler VS Karbe lenses = so even in Leica lenses we can chose our's

 

For me, Mandler's lens philosophy is a godsend for analog M (so if you plan to use M-A, may this my suggestion).

My surprise is those Mandler's Magic retain on sensor too 😍

 

In Leica lenses, recent Karbe's design lenses joined the Zeiss lens philosophy (for me better for sensor in most cases).

Those Apo-Summicron-M 2/50mm and Noctilux-M 1.25/75mm are among other pieces of Art + Techno at best and they will be very hard to attain.

 

As usual, only self-experiences can help to find your own way.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by a.noctilux

[Ray Vonn]

I think that Zeiss ZF2 135 2 on a D850 would smoke any equivalent 135mm Leica lens on an M body for image quality. 

[spydrxx]

My limited observation is with a Zeiss 50/1.7T*  on my Contax RX and a Summicron 50/2 on my M2 in dull outdoor lighting on color film. It could have been exposure differences, processing differences, but it appeared to me that the Zeiss had more vivid contrast and the transition at the edges of objects was more intense in shots with the  Zeiss lens than the Leica. I've been debating getting a Zeiss 135/2.8, but might rethink that after seeing Adan's comments, as I've always liked 135/4 Tele-Elmar.

[james.liam]

My own experience was also a bit of a journey too: the 35 that spends most time on my M10 and M9M is the ZM Biogon C. It's got a look, color and an indescribable 'something' that is all its own. I started out with MF Nikons in the 1990's and thought they were the end-all before moving on to DSLRs and assorted AF Nikkor. Thought they were the new end-alls.

Until I bought a ZF 2/35 on a lark and a Leica R 90 AA bought cheap because the R line had just been discontinued. Within a year, all the Nikon DSLR kit was gone. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ray Vonn said:

I think that Zeiss ZF2 135 2 on a D850 would smoke any equivalent 135mm Leica lens on an M body for image quality. 

Yeah, I'm starting to think that in discovering the Zeiss- and, further, utilizing it on my new D850- it has really spoiled me regarding what's out there. I also now understand that the 135 2 was likely the best lens in the Classic/ZF2 lineup and competes favourably with the much more expensive Otus line (which I hope to get the 100mm from eventually)- actually, I've heard that the 135 2 is an Otus "in everything but name", which there's even a video of the Zeiss CEO floating around out there where he says this. I would still be curious to try the 21 2.8 ZF2, though I've been advised to instead go for the newer Milvus 25 1.4, which apparently bests the former. 

[mmradman]

14 minutes ago, White Buffalo said:

Yeah, I'm starting to think that in discovering the Zeiss- and, further, utilizing it on my new D850- it has really spoiled me regarding what's out there. I also now understand that the 135 2 was likely the best lens in the Classic/ZF2 lineup and competes favourably with the much more expensive Otus line (which I hope to get the 100mm from eventually)- actually, I've heard that the 135 2 is an Otus "in everything but name", which there's even a video of the Zeiss CEO floating around out there where he says this. I would still be curious to try the 21 2.8 ZF2, though I've been advised to instead go for the newer Milvus 25 1.4, which apparently bests the former. 

One of the true great modern SLR lenses is APO Sonnar 135mm f2, it is of course APO corrected, while being modern design it avoids use of ASPH elements which i think add to the quality of the image, for one no annoying onion rings visible in OOF  highlights, for instance well regarded Summilux M 50mm is a culprit (i have this lens).   So far i have been playing with my M, R and Zeiss SLR lenses on Nikon Z7 and ability to achieve pin sharp focus plus IBIS adds to the quality of the final image, so perhaps a thumbs up to Mirrorless rather than D850.  I have produced pictures i like on SL601, still in queue for photo shoot on Z7 😁, Makro Planar 100mm f2 gets all the attention. 

Back to original question, my experience with Zeiss M lenses is limited to 21mm f4.5 and 25mm f2.8.  Both are wonderful although the former has some colour anomalies when used on colour sensor camera, not so much with film (superb) or Leica Monochrome (equally good).  I have disposed of the lens in part exchange as i already have too many 21mm Leica lenses and all of them work on Colour sensor cameras.  I managed to damage (insurance write off) my 25mm after one year of ownership and used insurance money to buy Leica Super Elmar 21mm f3.4, images i made with Zeiss on film and M9 are all technically well accomplished,  often toy with the idea to repurchase it but probably i will wait for forthcoming Nikkor S 24mm f1.8.

Zeiss M lenses i never tried in 35mm range are f1.4 and f2.8, both highly regarded, 1.4 considered to outclass current Leica Summilux 35mm FLE. 

[adan]

Among lenses I have actually used, the Leica lenses that to me look the "Zeiss-iest" are: 24 Elmarit ASPH (only available used, today); 28 Summicron ASPH; 50 Summilux ASPH; 75 APO-Summicron-ASPH; 135 APO-Telyt.

By Zeiss-iest, I mean: contrasty (and thus also with saturated colors), and with a warmer/redder color rendering. And that is based on the 1970-90s Kyocera/Contax/Zeiss lenses made in Japan on a Zeiss-supervised production line. Zeiss may have shifted their "look" in the past 20 years, as the Contax line was dropped, and they have moved on to lenses for Sony, the ZF/ZE/ZM lines, and the Milvus/Otus/Batis/Loxia types.

[Guest]

I would be curious about how the Zeiss Milvus 25 1.4 compares to the wider Summilux offerings. Anyone? 

I'm thinking of getting the Otus 100, but for the same money could get into some really nice Leica glass... I know I'll use the Zeiss much more since it'll be for my DSLR which I use daily for work. Tough decision... 

[dem331]

On 8/22/2019 at 10:31 AM, adan said:

The Zeiss 135 f/2.8 Sonnar was neck-and-neck with the Leitz 135 f/4 Tele-Elmar - but beat the Leitz/Leica 135 f/2.8 Elmarits, at least wide-open. But the 135 APO-Telyt f/3.4 took back the lead, and is at least a match to the Zeiss 135 f/2 in most ways except aperture.

I was reading this old thread which I found really interesting -thanks for all the historical context - but was surprised by this comment.  I have both the Contax 135mm f2.8 and the Tele-Elmar.  I have never been particularly happy with the Tele-Elmar, and I find that the Sonnar is much better (actually very good) on the SL2.  The Tele-Elmar seems to lose a lot of contrast when shot in anything but the most favourable light (with lens hood).  I'm wondering why my observation is so different to all I read about the Tele-Elmar. 

[adan]

Sample variation, possibly. The 135 TE was made over 32 years (1965-1997). Coatings (and factories) changed over that time, and the older lenses may have developed haze or other age effects to some extent or another, now that they are up to 55 years old. I have definitely run across some "antique" TEs that are duller, or have barrel-wobble (which can affect focus precision or field-flatness).

The picture below is a 100% crop from a Leica M8 (with full frame version inserted) with a "clean" 135 TE of 1970's vintage. Stopped down one stop (f/5.6 - the peak aperture). The fact that it holds up as an effective "800mm," at least for web use (and compressed to .jpg), says something for the resolution.

As to contrast, that depends on whether one means edge- or micro-contrast, or global contrast. The latter can be a two-edged sword on color slide film, or digital.

I like the fact that under raw sunlight, this shot holds separation and detail in the black-paint-in-shadow under the man's thigh, yet does not blow the white shirt (or "emergency-orange" vest) highlights. I generally found the Kyocera Zeisses to be overly-contrasty in Colorado's constant sunshine, even on B&W film (empty shadows and/or blocked highlights, sometimes within the same picture) - one of the reasons I switched to Leica M with (mostly) pre-APO/ASPH lenses 19 years ago.

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!

[dem331]

18 minutes ago, adan said:

Sample variation, possibly. The 135 TE was made over 32 years (1965-1997). Coatings (and factories) changed over that time, and the older lenses may have developed haze or other age effects to some extent or another, now that they are up to 55 years old. I have definitely run across some "antique" TEs that are duller, or have barrel-wobble (which can affect focus precision or field-flatness).

The picture below is a 100% crop from a Leica M8 (with full frame version inserted) with a "clean" 135 TE of 1970's vintage. Stopped down one stop (f/5.6 - the peak aperture). The fact that it holds up as an effective "800mm," at least for web use (and compressed to .jpg), says something for the resolution.

As to contrast, that depends on whether one means edge- or micro-contrast, or global contrast. The latter can be a two-edged sword on color slide film, or digital.

I like the fact that under raw sunlight, this shot holds separation and detail in the black-paint-in-shadow under the man's thigh, yet does not blow the white shirt (or "emergency-orange" vest) highlights. I generally found the Kyocera Zeisses to be overly-contrasty in Colorado's constant sunshine, even on B&W film (empty shadows and/or blocked highlights, sometimes within the same picture) - one of the reasons I switched to Leica M with (mostly) pre-APO/ASPH lenses 19 years ago.

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!

That's very interesting, you are certainly getting results that I do not get with mine.  I will examine my lens when I am back home, although cosmetically it is perfect, it may have developed haze or other ailments.  What I notice most is that in bright light (but not pointed directly at the light) there is like a thin veil over the whole image.I will post some  examples when I can.  Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[nwphil]

On 8/21/2019 at 7:01 PM, Guest said:

I'm currently in the midst of an exciting and adventurous time when it comes to my photography. I've been shooting professionally for about a decade now and never really had the chance to be a "gear guy" as my work kept me so busy, but recently when my Nikon D800 gave out and came time to upgrade to the new D850, I embarked on a gear journey which has lead me all over the place. I've always kept a couple film cameras around and currently have a Pentax 67II and Hasselblad 503cw (and soon Leica M-A)- I just love the aesthetic of film so much. This gear journey lead me to pick up a Nikon 105 1.4E ED, which I'd read so many great things about, but the truth is that I've been underwhelmed with the lens. That said, the fellow who sold it to me kept raving on about the Zeiss ZF2 135 2 and so a few days ago I picked up my own copy of the lens and have been utterly blown away by it. I've never seen my images pop in a way they do with the Zeiss. The bokeh, contrast, and sharpness are just on a whole other planet when compared to the Nikon lenses I'm used to. I remember looking down on the camera screen at the first image I shot on the Zeiss and being in disbelief over what a night-and-day update this was to anything I'd ever shot on a Nikon lens. Needless to say, I instantly became a firm believer of Zeiss lenses (which I'd only had experience with previously by way of my Hasselblad 80 2.8- a fine lens, but nowhere near as good as this 135, imo). I plan to sell most of my Nikon glass in order to go "all-in" with Zeiss for my SLR; will be a combination of the Classic/ZF2 stuff, as well as Milvus and perhaps even an Otus or two (the 100mm is the main Otus I want). 

Anyways, the reason I'm posting is that I'm wondering how Leica M-lenses compare to full frame SLR Zeiss lenses? I know that's an absolutely ridiculous question, especially when considering that Zeiss lenses come in an M-mount, but I wonder if they're the same quality/formula as the larger SLR ones. And regardless, I'm just curious how the M-lenses, which I'll soon be buying to go with my M-A, compare optically to something like the Zeiss I'm now familiar with. The 135 2 has really spoiled me for glass and I don't want to go to anything lesser moving forward. 

I know there's many knowledgable folks on this forum, so I eagerly await to hear from you on this topic! 

you have will have a better "usability" range than me, as I have them in EF mount,; thus electronic aperture.

Size and weight wise, Zeiss FF lenses can be bigger and heavier than the 50 Noc, so will be more than just unbalanced on the M body. 

IQ in both are worlds apart as far 'goals'; to my eyes, the zeiss Otus are very sharp wide open, except the 28mm. I think that it has somewhat of  rendering that can mimic the Leica

 see my post here:(not working as intended - page 18, post #353)

taken with 1Dx & a Otus 28mm at f1.4. The 28 is not considered the sharpest of the Otus line. If you have zeiss FF lenses is worth to get an adapter and play a bit with them, but I wouldn't go out and buy to use it on a M

Edited January 8, 2020 by nwphil

[RexGig0]

Not all Zeiss SLR lenses perform like all other Zeiss SLR lenses. The 2/135mm Sonnar APO, whether ZF.2 or ZE, has been said to be the Otus, in everything but name, having been introduced before the first Otus. I bought ZF.2 AND ZE APO Sonnar lenses, and later added an Otus 1,4/85mm ZF.2, and agree that these 135mm lenses play in the same league as the Otus.

Not all Leica M lenses perform like all other Leica M lenses. Previous replies have already discussed this, in some detail. 

Not all Zeiss ZM lenses perform like all other Zeiss ZM lenses. The older 1,5/50mm Sonnar is so very different from the newest 1,4/35mm Distagon. (I have no experience with the former, but have, and love, the latter.) The wide-angle, film-era ZM lenses will produce color shifts on digital images, but I love the black & white images produced by my Monochrom 246, with my 4,5/21mm Biogon-C.

”Micro-contrast” are fighting words, in some places, but if such a thing exists, well, all Zeiss lenses I have used, seem to have what I think may well be micro-contrast. Maybe they are simply very sharp. 😉