The "look" - Leica vs Zeiss

[john_r_smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Folks

 

photographers are often quoted as believing that Leica or Zeiss lenses have a certain "look" - that is, that they "draw" with light in a certain way. I personally believe this to be true, but find it almost impossible to define - I just feel that I know it when I see it. Can others here confirm this, perhaps, and maybe (if you have used both) explore the differences between these two great German optical houses?

 

John

[larry]

John,

 

There's no doubt in my mind that Leica and Zeiss lenses have a different look. I have a Contax G1 and an M7 and can see the difference, but I've never conducted a head-to-head comparison between the two using equivalent lenses. If I can find a few spare hours this weekend I might try this.

 

Larry

[Guest rubidium]

I would argue that John's point is also clearly manifested in microscopy by the way. The two "great German optical houses" have a long history of making high-end microscope objectives that display the distinctive "look" of their respective design philosophies. Zeiss objectives are somewhat more "clinical" than those of Leitz/Leica. Once again, it's difficult to define, but you recognize it when you see it.

 

Technically, I would say that the "look" is simply the outcome of the particular compromises a designer chooses from the extensive ensemble of possible compromises that can be made when striving to balance optical aberrations in a compound lens of a particular focal length and aperture range. Some aspects of the compromise are presumably driven by materials properties (e.g. refractive index, etc.) and manufacturing capabilities (e.g. ability to precisely grind lens elements into particular shapes, precision of the mount, etc.) available at the time, and size, weight and cost considerations. Other aspects may be the outcome of artistic taste (e.g. the appearance of out-of-focus regions in the image.) Since the designers have been few in number (e.g. the Berek era, the Mandler era, the Kölsch era, and now I believe currently Schröder at Leica), I'm inclined to think that preferred formulae by each designer have led to the establishment of "look" trends during particular design eras.

 

Jim

[christer]

There has alway been a number of restains for the lens designers/manufacturers (like for film manufactures; you can not have fine grain and high speed at the same time).

 

Earlier Leica (Leitz) aimed more overall sharpness (corner to corner) while Zeiss aimed at higher sharpness in the middle and paid for it with less corner sharpness.

 

Modern technique in design and manufacturing (think of aspheric as an example) has pushed the restraints further away and you can now have two things at the same time that was impossible some decades ago. (You can now also have fine grain and good film speed.) This means that modern lenses from Zeiss and Leica will have a more similar fingerprint than previously; the lens designer no longer needs to make certain choices, you can now have both excellent contrast and definition.

 

With sharpness and contrast being as good as it is, the lens designers can now decide what priorities come next; distortion, flarefreeness, flat field etc. These are things that affect the fingerprint less that the historical choices.

 

(Obviously glass selection will affect color rendition, but I only use b+w)

[albertwang]

Zeiss has a certain scientific crispness that Leica tends to draw a softer feel to them. This tended to be truer of the older Leitz and Kyocera lenses.

 

I haven't used the newer Cosina Zeiss lenses but I suspect that they will be more evenly sharpened across the whole field. I know that my Leica 35-70mm f4 zoom is extremely sharp with lots of cutting details.

[frc]

Owning 6 all recent or quite recent Leica lenses I must conclude there is a vast difference in the depiction of the subject between all these lenses.

They vary from mellow and painterly ( Lux 35 asph and lux 75 ) to very sharp and analitic though not sterile ( Elmarit 21 asph and Tri-Elmar ) with the last version Summicron 50 somewere in between, the Elmarit 90 close to the latter but a bit more saturated in colour.

Question: which Leica look ;-)

One Zeiss is in my possession, a more than half a century old Jena 50 2.8, of cource no comparison to the modern leia lenses, but never the less a satisfying lens to work with.

Looking throughthe viewfinder of my Exakta VX 500 or Varex II it already gives a cristal clear view. This is confirmed when looking at the prints produced, warm, saturated but overall sharp images.

[christoph_d]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good evening,

 

Puts has written quite extensively on this topic, for example here: Erwins Photosite or here: http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c015.html

 

My only personal experience is a 50 year old Zeiss Sonnar 2/50. It is quite soft wide open with an interesting smooth rendering of skin tones that can be nicely utilised for portrait photography. However stopped down it is still very sharp and comparable in performance to lenses of current design.

 

Kind regards, C.

[kdemas]

I have and use both Leica (Ms) and Zeiss (Contax G & N Mount Digital) and there definitely is a different look. For me there is a color rendition difference, with Leica being warmer, Zeiss cooler. The "clinical look" that is described above can come into play, though I would say it is more of a "hard edged", razor sharp nature of some Zeiss glass. The 45mm and 90mm G lenses are prime examples.

 

On the other hand the 85mm N Zeiss is VERY Leica like, an incredible lens. Surreal bokeh much like that of the Noct that I love so much.

 

Long and short.... both are terrific, but certainly different.

 

Kent

[john_r_smith]

Interesting replies. Erwin Puts did not start me out on this, but his thoughts might be worth quoting here, just to save you wading through all the articles on the subject -

 

"We can define the quality of images over two dimensions, the spatial and tonal resolution. Leica is evidently the champion of the spatial resolution and the elimination of aberrations at all cost, with a very accurate definition and very crisp drawing that extends to the limit of the modern emulsion technology (or capture technology to include the sensors of digital cameras).

 

Zeiss favours a type of tonal resolution that brings rich colours and a smooth gradation over the whole image, not only from corner to corner, but also into the image from foreground to background.

 

Of course the differences are not a simple or clear-cut as described here. Spatial and tonal resolution are two sides of the same coin and can not be separated as two competing dimensions. If you have good spatial resolution, then tonal resolution is good too. But you can shift the balance and the relative weighting of the two. We are discussing lens lines that are quite capable of excellent imagery, but with a different design approach, that does become visible in practical photography." (Erwin Puts website, from The New Zeiss ZM Lenses, Part 3, September 4th 2005)

 

Do we pretty much agree with these views?

 

John

[larry]

John,

 

Putts' observations coincide with my own results. Both the Contax G and Leica M lenses produce photos that even casual observers notice as being "more lifelike."

 

Larry

[albertwang]

Okay, let me propose a test then... given two pictures shot by Leica and Zeiss, what practical differences can we see in the print/jpeg/RAW file?

[larry]

Okay, let me propose a test then... given two pictures shot by Leica and Zeiss, what practical differences can we see in the print/jpeg/RAW file?

 

Albert,

 

Please define what you mean by "practical." (As I indicated in an earlier post, I'm going to try doing a head-to-head comparison in the near future.)

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

[wparsonsgisnet]

In his reviews, Sean Reid is using Leica, Zeiss, and CV lenses in his wide angle evaluations.

 

I bot my leica 24mm lens based on his reviews and I am anticipating some software purchases as well, based on his reviews.

 

He is planning further testing using the M8 he has, using this same variety of lenses.

 

ReidReviews is one of the best purchases I've made. Check it out.

[Simon Larbalestier]

I'd agree Sean's review site really goes into great depth about the cameras and lenses he chooses to review:

 

The 25 Zeiss and 24 Elmarit is a good case in point and in b/w examples with close detail crops you can really see how the two lenses"draw" OOF areas in different ways. Subtle but clear visual differences.

 

Subscribing to Sean's site is well worth the small subscription fee of $26.50