Zeiss G 45 vs. G 35 etc

[robgo2]

Jason,

I agree that the 35/2 is a very fine lens that has undeservedly gotten a bad rap. However, I am not sure about your statement that the 28, 45 and 90mm lenses are "Leica killers." They certainly give the comparable Leica lenses stiff competition at much lower prices, but you would have a tough time convincing a Leica fanatic that they are actually better. Come to think of it, you would have a tough time engaging a Leica fanatic in any sort of rational discussion.

 

[paulsimcock]

> Robert,

Very well put...I've always considered Leica more of a myth than a legend. After looking at an M6 against a G series I went for the G...price was a factor, but the main strength of the Contax G is when you look through the viewfinder you don't have to figure out which lines represent the lens you are using...and I also prefer the G for the same reasons I choose the Rollei 6008 over a Hasselblad...it is just such a more modern camera and convenient to use...and the quality of the images is comparable...but I think the HCB wannabees might may disagree.

Cheers to all

Paul

 

[Colin645]

As a Leica user for 35 years and a Contax user for 45 years, I truly believe that Zeiss lenses are every bit as good as Leica (Leitz)However, IMHO, nothing is built like a Leitz/Leica product. And their 3 yr Passport Warranty is unique in the industry. If you damage, or totally wreck your item, it WILL be replaced at no cost to you!
Whilst I have in previous messages complained about the after sales service of Leica, the Passport stands head and shoulders above anything out there.
Colin

 

[derekstanton]

I would tend to disagree that the Leica thing is a myth. I don't subscribe fully to the "legend" thing, either, though. Zeiss and Leica are different. I have no judgements as to which is better, and i would imagine any such assessment would be inherently flawed, as no single lens line is superiour to another. There may be certain lenses which do certain things better than others, but you'd have to mix-and-match lenses from various manufacturers to get the 'best' of anything.

But, back to the differences - I think any rational person would be hardpressed to detect or demonstrate advantages between Zeiss and Leica with regard to sharpness. But, i do believe strongly that the two brands render scenes/imagery differently. Since i rarely shoot colour, i won't comment on colour rendition. This, anyway, is something that might even be a moot point, since almost all images end up in digital form at some point, and photoshop or the scanning process can/will have an affect. But, bokeh, and contrast are two areas that i see as differentiating characteristics.

I like the bokeh of Zeiss and Leica, in a general sense, more than with other brands. But, there are exeptions, of course. Even within brands. A summicron does things differently than a summilux. But both, to me, are preferable to most Nikkors (55mm Micro-Nikkor, excepted). And, a Planar is different from a Summicron.... Whatever. I can appreciate these differences, but my 'obsession' with these nuances is what leads me to now own both a Leica R8 and Contax N1, in addition to Hasselblad.

A person need to weigh individual needs when picking a camera system. The whole bokeh/contrast thing may not be an issue if one shoots with smaller apertures, and uses colour films. Then, the issues are more relative to operational matters. AF or manual, automation, or manual metering. The viewfinder issue is another thing altogether. I went from a G2 to a leica M7, to a Leica R8. I found, after a year of using the M7 that i just didn't like composing with framelines. I like to completely crop out what won't be visible in the final print, and i was distracted by the extraneous matter on the outside of the Leica-M framelines. Many people cherish that outside information, but i was uninspired when i had to see everything, even the bits i had decided i didn't want in the picture. As well, the 'rangefinder way' forces you to look at everything in-focus. But, as i tend to shoot wide-open much of the time, i like to see depth of field effects. Helps me to visualize better, rather than trying to imagine what i'd get later....

The G2 lenses are, of course, wonderful. For sharpness. I found them, however, overly contrasty. I like the 'smoothness' of Leica glass, and the rich midtones are important to me. I see the same contrastiness in the T3. Oddly, i don't find that to be true with my N-85mm 1.4 or N-50mm 1.4, or Hasselblad 80mm. Go figure.

I guess, through this rambling, i meant to address the thought that the Contax lenses are "Leica Killers." For those who don't want to spend the money, and/or don't see those 'differences' i see, the G glass is spectacular. You get the same (sharpness) performance for a fraction of the cost, and with a modern, quick-operating body. It's a great deal, especially now, with the rebates. But, although they are a terrific alternative, they aren't going to dissuade devotees of Leica glass from continuing to pay top-dollar. People will pay for those small differences.

Also, the lexicon of "better" relative to lenses needs more specificity. The G45 is inarguably sharper than the Summilux-M 50mm. It's the 50mm Summicron that is a closer match. A 90mm G may match a 90mm Elmarit, or Summicron, but probably not the newer 90mm APO Summicron. The 35mm M-Summicron probably isn't that sharp, but is prized for other characteristics. So, really, who is to say which is better? Or, which line is better? It all depends on who needs what, and then, more practically, how it's used. Most times, the lenses aren't even used up to their potential, but that's another story.

I'm sure i'll get arguments about all i've just written. But, to save you the energy of calling me a crackpot, i'll also assert that i see differences between the 80mm Zeiss Planar for the Rollei versus the 80mm Zeiss Planar for the Hasselblad.... They're supposed to be the same, but they have different formulations.... So, yah, i may be nuts (but that doesn't mean i'm wrong, right?).

Okay, sleepy-time.

 

[paulsimcock]

> Derek,

That was a good posting...it is a matter of preference really, and as a people photographer I have found that Zeiss lenses for Contax G and SLR, and the Rollei 6000 give me more pleasing skin tones than any other lenses...and I love the look and feel of images from those lenses...I love using the cameras...and I too like to see just what I am getting...my style is clean and uncluttered...and I don't like to see any extraneous subject matter in my viewfinder.

Cheers, take care.

Paul

 

[paulsimcock]

>

Regarding the Leica. They do trade on the 'legend' and it amuses me to hear sales people at my local pro store tell me that most Leicas are bought by doctors and lawyers as they are most able to afford them...and are probably the most taken in by the advertising...rather than assessing the camera for themselves.

Paul

 

[tvdweert]

>Hello all-

Take it from this grizzled old Leicaphile - the G2 optics are absolutely a match for the best Leitz optics. I own both systems and am constantly amazed by the qualities of both. In fact, for my money, I think the Zeiss optics may be a tad better overall...Only one problem w/ the Contax: it doesnt make me feel like Gary Winogrand or Cartier Bresson, like my m3 does. Oh well, you cant have everything.

Cheers from Paris, Tim v

 

[jason4774]

You know...make one comment like "Leica killer" in a forum, and a whole Leica vs. Contax parade starts rolling

I've shot both, and I like both. All I meant by "Leica Killer" is that the Contax lenses, like the Leica lenses, leave users desiring little more in terms of quality.

Leica M and Contax G lenses are the two lens systems in existence which, on the strength of their merits, across the lens lineup, at every working aperture, leave the user craving for nothing more.

That Contax managed their feat for 1/3rd to 1/5th the price, makes it a Leica killer.

There ARE differences, to be sure, and systems in different situations I would prefer, but both remain irreplacable.

However, I will say...

that if the Leica lens lineup was designed by Zeiss, you would not hear a single soul complaining about their lenses. They'd probably be snubbing all those poor saps, with those Contax G's claiming that their Leitz designed "Summicron" was as good as their tried and true "Planar" design, which consistently tests higher than any other lens on the planet.

I dare say they'd be happy as hell to own "the best lenses money can buy."

Subjectivism definitely comes into play, in such discussions

Changing the lens systems, wouldn't change that at all.

(Personally, I'd love to own a 21mm Biogon, 45mm Planar, and 90mm Sonnar in an M mount)

What's best, is always opinion. And, both sides have alot of "team pride" shall I say, but neither lens system shows a serious deficiency, based on the goals the manufacturer intended.

That's a rare feat, and as of yet, only Contax and Leica manage to pull it off.

Anyway, all I was trying to say, is that the 35mm Planar is one hell of a lens. It won't compete with Leica's aspherical Summicron, but it'll compete with damn near any other 35mm lens ever made.

What's better or worse, is a matter of opinion. The quality of this lens, however, is too often maligned and overblown, except by the people who own and use them.

When I look at my slides, I wonder how anyone (even a Leica user) can badmouth this lens.

 

[beary]

There is one more thing I'd like to add to the perennial G2 vs. Leica M debate. I have been shooting with both systems over the past year, having started with the Leica M system over 10 years ago.

Please don't get me wrong; I love the G2. It is a marvelous piece of engineering and advancement in rangefinder photography. But I have found a very subtle difference between the two in terms of shooting style.

With the Leica I have to think a little longer before I shoot. Some times that improves the image considerably. Some times I miss the moment completely because I'm thinking too long.

With the G2 I tend to shoot first and think later. With all of the automated support, I think I tend to let the camera think for me. Some times this works perfectly. Some times it produces "what was I thinking?" images.

So you may be asking yourself, "what's this got to do with lenses?" Well, I started to blame Leica lenses for being slow to respond to critical moments and fine points would be out of focus or poorly rendered. And, I started to blame the Zeiss lenses for being out of focus because I wasn't using the auto-focus properly.

What I've concluded is both of these camera systems and lenses are outstanding if you learn to take advantage of each of their strengths and avoid their limitations... and they both have each.

Would I have one without the other? No.

If I could only have one which one would it be?

Now that's a very hard question.... it's probably why this debate will go on and on and on.

For whatever it's worth,

Barry

 

[coodeville]

I passed through A camera shop in NH today. The salesman was tryingto convince a potential buyer that the M7 was so much more worth the money than a G2. What a schpiel he laid on this guy. ever notive how sales guys all contradict each other? Bottom line to a sales guy: Get the money and run.