dem331 Posted January 13, 2020 Share #21 Posted January 13, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 1/8/2020 at 6:07 PM, 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! Well, I inspected my tele-elmar and there was no haze at all. What I found was a very dusty UV filter. So I took it off and tried it without the filter, expecting not to notice much difference, but was wrong. There is a great difference. I tried the lens against the Contax f2.8 in similar lighting situations and I can not say which one is better. I usually keep UV filters on my lenses with lens hoods and no caps (except when using at night), so they are not always spotless, but I have not noticed any of them affect IQ like I have with the Tele-Elmar. Maybe it is something to do with the construction of this lens, I don't know. Very surprised. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 Hi dem331, Take a look here How do Leica lenses compare to full frame SLR Zeiss lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Einst_Stein Posted January 14, 2020 Share #22 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) Leica M lenses generally have much better build quality. They are also much better in terms of digital sensor friendly and/or post processing SW friendly due to the “secrete “ correction formula. You may call this an unfair game. I have three Zeiss lenses (1 Contax/Yashica 2 ZM) developed focus ring backlash, two internal fungus, but none of my Leica has any sign of build quality deterioration, many of my Leica are much older N-th handed. The Contax/Yashica 28mm wide angle lenses has significant worse distortion than my Leica, and ZM 35mm, 25mm show significant Christmas light effect on digital M, but even the 28-35-50mm Tri-Elmer is free of that. These should be due to the lack of supported lens correction, I think in the old film days, Leica M lenses have the advantage of the shorter flange distance due to the lack of mirror, which is hard to be compensated by the larger lens size. Among Zeiss, the Hasselblad much older SWC 38mm Biogon vs. it’s any 40mm Distagon is a clear example. Moving into digital, the digital sensor imposes more challenges to the short flange, which requires deeper understanding of the lens correction. Leica again wins with its proprietary on camera lens correction. Edited January 14, 2020 by Einst_Stein Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torontoamateur Posted January 14, 2020 Share #23 Posted January 14, 2020 I have many Leica Lenses and many Zeiss. It depends on the lens itself. My 21mmf/2.8 ZM is soft in corners. My 35mm f/2.8 ZM is amazing. Both have colours POP out. I find Leica lenses "flat" Zeiss always has a POP. I love my Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. If you go to Youtube and seek out the Cinema lens comparisons among Leica Lens and Cooke Lens you will see how the Leica is Flat, This is repeated with Zeiss lenses. I will say I am NOT disappointed with my Leica, Zeiss or Nikon lenses. I use them all. I suggest you concentrate on composition and forget the minor discrepancies. Unless you are doing precise scientific or landscape work. I like to use softer lenses when doing portraits. More painterly. Each subject needs to be interpreted. Thus the Noctilus f/1.0 which to me is the ultimate painterly lens, closely followed by the Zeiss 110mm F/2.0 on a Hasselblad. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulcurtis Posted January 17, 2020 Share #24 Posted January 17, 2020 I have used all these lenses, so my take on them is... Zeiss ZF/ZE - typical zeiss, very sharp, suffer some purple fringing (a lot) bokeh has sharp CA laiden edges and very sharp. did i say that? There are exceptions, i have a 135 APO and it's stunning. But most aren't like that. Zeiss OTUS - very nice, like the 135APO. Huge and heavy Zeiss Supreme - okay, these are cine, but they're beautiful Zeiss Contax - vintage but really nice vintage, less sharp than the modern lenses more differences between them so as a set they're not great but some lovely lenses in there Lecia R - i'm pretty meh about these, prefer contax above Voightlander - love them, great value Leica M - just moving into these, because they are better in general. IMHO they feel better in terms of image, the fall off etc,. YMMV cheers Paul 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.