DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax G vs Leica M lenses

In my opinion, the G2 lenses have two characteristics that render them superior to the Leica M lenses and they are (1) color saturation and (2) sharpness.
 
You are absolutely right Derek!
There is no such thing as a perfect camera. They are all compromises. I used to use Leicas exclusively some 10 years ago, found them a bit fiddly for press work, slow flash sync speed (useless for action pix in daylight), having to remove the baseplate to change film, (try doing this quickly with cold hands in the middle of a riot!) rangefinder discalibrating every few months, viewfinder would fog up (on the inside) in the rain. I could carry on.
Despite all that I managed to take some memorable shots on them.
I eventually traded them in for Nikon SLRs.
I first came to use G2s when I hired a couple of bodies with a handful of lenses for a feature about three years ago. I must admit my views were rather mixed. the AF seemed really noisy and difficult to use at first. would have preferred the manual focusing using the lens as opposed to that wierd knob at the top of the camera. As I wear glasses I find the viewfinder too small (had the same problem with the Leica). I also used a T2 which was a nice little camera.
At the time I didn't think that I would pay good money for one.
I recently found a whole black kit (G2, 28mm, 45mm 90mm and TLA 200) in mint condition for sale at a good price. I just couldn't resist!
As I only tend to shoot digital there days, it will make a nice change for certain jobs.
I am really fascinated by what you guys have to say on this forum, I'm learning a lot about these machines. People seem so passionate about them!
As far as the Lieca "red dot" issue is concerned. I have always gaffer taped over these things as soon as I get them. I prefer my cameras to be anonymous.
Regards
Paul
http://www.britishpressphoto.org/paulmattsson/
 
Doug,

> In my opinion, the G2 lenses have two characteristics that render them > superior to the Leica M lenses and they are (1) color saturation and > (2) sharpness.

Do you have any specific comparative images you can show that support your conclusion? I, having used both Leica and Zeiss lenses for many many years, I don't find your conclusion is at all accurate. I have not used the G2 lenses, but I can hardly imaging them being "better" than the Contax SLR Zeiss lenses.

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin,

The forum you are on is replete with images attesting to the superior color saturation and sharpness of the G2 lenses.

"Better than Contax Zeiss lenses." No..that is your comment..not mine.

What I would state based on my experience (and that of most shooters) is that the G2 lenses tend to produce images that are sharper with more dynamic (bold) color rendition than do the Leica M lenses. Whether one prefers that characteristic is another issue.
 
None of the images in this forum attest to any such superiority. Unless you shoot the same subject with both cameras/lenses on the same emulsion at the same time, you're comparing two different things. Leica photographers are more known for b+w shooting anyway. Tri-X is considered the staple film. Leica photographers photograph subjects in a different way. A Leica is known more for reportage work than a G2, so naturally the imagery will be different.

Zeiss lenses are, in my estimation, more contrasty than Leitz. That might account for your perception that they are sharper. But, that's an aesthetic consideration, and not an empirical fact. You make the choice to decide what characteristics you prefer in your pictures. But, a blanket statement like that one is automatically invalid, as it's too broad and generalized to be true. Besides, no line of lenses is, superior to another line. Each lens would have to be evaluated individually, against its counterpart. The 45mm G might be sharper than the 50 summilux, but maybe not as sharp as the 50 summicron-DR.... And, in speaking of superiority, you say nothing of the speed issue. A 50mm Noctilux (or even a Summilux) is going to get you images you can't get with an f2 lens, just because of the extra stop(s). That's to say nothing of the difference in bokeh and all that can be achieved with even shallower DOF....

So, please - superior? How about DIFFERENT?
 
Doug,

> The forum you are on is replete with images attesting to the superior > color saturation and sharpness of the G2 lenses.

The images don't compare anything to anything, just show images. I'm sure there are really nice images (as good as you can show over the web anyway, which is really not a good way to judge image quality, BTW), there are thousands of really nice Leica images as well.

> What I would state based on my experience (and that of most shooters)

MOST? Such as whom? That seems more like exageration than fact.

> is that the G2 lenses tend to produce images that are sharper with > more dynamic (bold) color rendition than do the Leica M lenses.

But what are you basing that on? Are these YOUR images, that you took with a Leica M that you are comparing them to? If so, I'd like to see them and know how they were taken. Did you use the same film, take the same image, same processing etc? Same shutter speed? If you're basing this "claim" on older Leica lenses, that's an unreasonable comparison.

There is simply nothing at all inferior about the late model Leica lenses. In no way am I saying the Zeiss G lenses aren't superb (I have a LOT of them, between my 12 Contax SLR lenses, and my Hasselblad lenses), they are...but I believe anyone who makes the claim you just did is simply making an unfounded claim.

> Whether one prefers that characteristic is another issue.

Agreed. There are many reasons one might "prefer" one to the other, not based on any technical reality.

I'm not defending Leica at all, simply questioning the claim, as it goes completely counter to my many year experience with both the Leica Ms and the Contax SLRs. As I said, I highly doubt that the G glass is superior to the SLR glass, so these claims have me mystified ;-)

Regards,

Austin
 
My experience is that Contax G glass is sharper with more dynamic color saturation across the range than are the Leica M lenses. The sharpness of these lenses on a comparative basis has been empirically tested by many sources including photodo.com

Color rendition is a more subjective arena. That would be called an aesthetic opinion. I happen to like the color rendition produced by Contax G lenses.

If you prefer Leica, then you are free to go play with your Leica until you go blind. But you shouldn't pontificate all day about what members on this thread should opine or what feelings they should express.

As far as members producing scans to justify our opinions.. all I can say is go jump in the lake.

If anyone on this thread finds anything Austin states as being pompous and annoying, simply hit your "Beep-Beep" key.
 
I'm just getting to checking my email so sorry for the delay. Yes, I do get it. The problem that I assumed would exist is that there would NOT be a fail safe. In other words, if the autofocus was fooled, then I thought, maybe incorrectly, that the distance indicator would also read incorrectly and there is no mechanical indication of distance scales on the dial. Scott
 
Doug,

> My experience is that Contax G glass is sharper with more dynamic > color saturation across the range than are the Leica M lenses.

Did you take the same image, using the same film/exposure etc. with each camera and then compare them? If not, then what are you basing your assessment on?

> The > sharpness of these lenses on a comparative basis has been empirically > tested by many sources including photodo.com

Er, right, yes it has...here is what photodo.com has to say:

G 35/2:

Weighted MTF for 35 mm: f2 0,68, f2,8 0,77, f4 0,82, f8 0,83

Leica 35/2.0

Weighted MTF for 35 mm: f2 0,69, f2,8 0,78, f4 0,80, f8 0,83

...well, interesting...they both rate 4.1, and fact is, the Leica is sharper at two f-stops, and the G only one.

Now, the G 45/2:

Weighted MTF for 45 mm: f2 0,71, f2,8 0,83, f4 0,88, f8 0,87

and the Leica 50/2:

Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f2 0,78, f2,8 0,81, f4 0,85, f8 0,87

The Leica is MUCH sharper at f2, by nearly %10...and the G is slightly sharper at two other f-stops. They rated the G at 4.7, and the Leica at 4.6. So, here again, there really isn't much differenct at all, except at f2, where the Leica is FAR better.

And the G 90/2.8:

Weighted MTF for 90 mm: f2,8 0,81, f4 0,84, f8 0,85

and the Leica 90/2.8:

Weighted MTF for 90 mm: f2,8 0,81, f4 0,85, f8 0,86

And the Leica is better at two out of the three f-stops tested. Rating for the G lense is 4.4, and for the Leica lense is 4.5.

So, Doug, in reality, your claim is simply unfounded. There is physically no way you could see these differences, except possibly the superiority of the Leica 50/2 at f2.

I am NOT in any way Contax bashing, I believe they are superb cameras and lenses, but reality is reality, and the Contax lenses are simply NOT sharper, as an overall generalization, and as shown by your own reference.

The "color saturation" issue may or may not be good or bad, as I've seen no color fidelity testing (which is what is required, a lense that adds color is simply distorting the image...what you want is a lense that faithfully reproduces the color, with no color distortion), which would be what is required to actually see which one is in fact "better" in this "category". I believe your film choice/exposure is far more important than any difference between the two lense.

Regards,

Austin
 
Back
Top