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!

OT Zeiss Ikon

patrik

Active Member
Hello,

I had an oppurtuanity to visit a Elmia photo trade show in Jönköping, Sweden in april 2005. At the trade show Hasselblad show the new Zeiss Ikon camera with all the current lenses. I am very impressed by the build quality of the Zeiss Ikon camera, it is very solid with a very bright rangefinder window. The lenses have a very solid feel and according to the MTF charts at www.zeissikon.com they seems to be super performers. The most interesting lens is the Distagon 15mm f/2.8, which is designed to have rays to hit the filmplane at a "perpendicular" angle. The reason for this is for digital sensors.

The lenses are manufactured in Japan, except for the Distagon 15mm f/2.8 and Sonnar 85mm f/2 which is due to its complicated design manufactured in Germany. If you like rangefinders, do take a look at the new Zeiss Ikon. It is a very nice camera, and the price will be approx 60% of Leica M cameras. And I do also belive that we will see more digital rangefinder cameras in the future.
 
I brought two Zeiss M mount lenses Planar 50 2 and Biogon 35 2. I took photos of the same places with my Leica counterparts under the same lighting and f nos. All photos were taken hand held with my M3. As the difference could be due to the effect of hand holding the camera, we compared rolls of film. We also examine the results under light microscopy.

50 2 Planar vs 50 2 Leica Summicron.The results are very close. At f2. The area in focus has very little difference. The only difference is the colour rendition. Again Zeiss, in general and in this case of 50mm, showed a more accurate reproduction of colours. The less accurate colour reproduction of Leica can easily be compensated by film processing. The area out of focus showed Summicron is more able to produce better definition, as if it has a bigger depth of view. Perhaps depth of view,depends not only on f nos.,but also on the manufacturer. At higher f nos such as 4 and 5.6, Summicron still provides better resolutions. Summicrons also produces images with with more colour contrast and large object contrast.

Biogon 35 2 and aspheric Summicron 35 2. At f2,Leica produces better resolution. Again Leica produces an effect like a bigger depth of field. At 5.6, Biogon is better. Although the differences at different apertures are not much,but they are definitely there.

The MTF charts predict Biogon to be better in resolving lines at 4 and 5.6,it correlates well with my practical findings.

The general rules still holds after the impact of the new Zeiss M lenses. Zeiss produces better colours, Leica is the choice for low light photography and has the merit of better dimensional feel.

If you like I could scan the results and share it with the rest. At the moment I am also comparing my G 45 2 with the others. Will disclose the result later
 
I brought two Zeiss M mount lenses Planar 50 2 and Biogon 35 2. I took photos of the same places with my Leica counterparts under the same lighting and f nos. All photos were taken hand held with my M3. As the difference could be due to the effect of hand holding the camera, we compared rolls of Kodak 200 HD. We also examine the results under light microscopy.

50 2 Planar vs 50 2 Leica Summicron. The results are very close. At f2. The area in focus has very little difference. The only difference is the colour rendition. Again Zeiss, in general and in this case of 50 mm, showed a more accurate reproduction of colours. The less accurate colour reproduction of Leica can easily be compensated by film processing. The area out of focus showed Summicron is more able to produce better definition, as if it has a bigger depth of view. Perhaps depth of view,depends not only on f nos.,but also on the manufacturer. At higher f nos such as 4 and 5.6, Summicron provides better resolutions. Summicrons also produces images with with more colour contrast and large object contrast.

Biogon 35 2 and aspheric Summicron 35 2. At f2, Leica produces better resolution. Again Leica produces an effect like a bigger depth of field. At 5.6, Biogon is better. The aspheric Leica is just less sharp than Biogon. Although the differences at different apertures are not much, they are definitely there.

The MTF charts predict Biogon to be better in resolving lines at 4 and 5.6, it correlates well with my practical findings.

The general rules still hold after the impact of the new Zeiss M lenses. Zeiss produces better colours, Leica is the choice for low light photography and has the merit of better dimensional feel.

If you like I could scan the results and share them with the rest. At the moment I am also comparing my G 45 2 with the others. Will disclose the results later.
 
Thank you for your reply.

The only "rangefinder" I have used is Contax G2, so I have no experience of Leica M lenses (have used leica R). I think it is great that both Leica and Zeiss have M lenses, so you can pick the one you like most. It will be interesting to see how the Sonnar 85/2 and the new APO-Summicron 75/2 ASPH performs.
 
I suppose you mean APO-Summicron 90/2 ASPH as Leica do not have aspheric lenses for the 75 mm focal length. So you wish to compare ZM 85 2 with Leica's aspheric 90 2. I have the aspheric 90 2. It is one with both sharpness and dimensional feel. At f2, this lens is slightly sharper than 100 2 of C-Y mount at 2 and the image also have a good 3D effect. It also happens that this lens is more Zeiss like compared with other Leica lenses in colour reproduction. It has a good colour fidelity. Well,this lens almost excels in all aspect of optical performance except Bokeh. I like 100 2 and 85 1.4 of C-Y more than this aspheric Leica in terms of Bokeh.
Leica has a non-aspheric 75 1.4,but it does not have such a good reputation as compared to APO 90 2. I have no urge to buy one.
I am sure ZM 85 2 will be an excellent performer even though Zeiss has not publish its MTF yet. It will have good sharpness,good colour,3D and good Bokeh as most Zeiss lenses have good Bokeh.
I have less faith with the Zeiss Ikon camera body not because it is silver,but it has an electronic shutter. It will be like the one in Voigtlander body,I suppose,which creates more vibration than the mechanical shutter of M. I would be very grateful if someone can tell me if I am wrong in this aspect. I believe M3 and other M with .85 rangefinder have better shutter and focusing accuracy than Zeiss Ikon body.
 
The APO 75mm/2 ASPH is a newly developed lens, information can be found in the Leica section at www.photo.net.

The Zeiss Ikon exists also in a black version, and the lenses are also in black versions. It is true that the Zeiss Ikon has an electronic shutter. The rumoured Leica M digital will probabily also have an electronic shutter (maybe that can change during the design process). I have not handled a Leica M camera so I can not say about the shutter differencies. But my feeling is that the leica M shutter would be smoother.
 
> All very interesting, but last time I looked this was a Contaxinfo site, = not > either Zeiss Ikon or Leica.
 
Well, I am more than happy to talk about Contax in Contax site. Unfortunately, the involutionary process of Kyocera just give me less chance to talk about it. For many years we have been waiting for Kyocera to improve their product line,but it has certainly lost its interest in the innovations of photography. I have been waiting for long enough for a good 35mm lens,for ex&le. N24-85,N17-35,G35 2.8,C-Y 35 2.8 C-Y 35 1.4 are the basic ones but I am not happy with all these. Even the big optical Giant Zeiss can see this,and instead of improving the pre-existing Contax line,she joined forces with Mr Kobayashi,president of Cosina. This union seemed to accelerate the atrophy of Kyocera. As soon as ZM products reach the market,Kyocera announced the cease of production. Now,I am now quite happy with my little lens ZM 35 2.
Although the optical performances of G35 2 and ZM 35 2
are no match, Contax made the exterior structure of the lens a lot better than Cosina. G35 is cheap but has an elegant look. My ZM 35 2 is three times more expensive but it just have a cheap look. My one is silver and It did not help when one of the screw was damaged by careless screwing before it reaches the consumer.

Thank you for telling me about the new product apo 75 2 ASPH. It has an impressive MTF performance and it is good to bridge the gap between 50 and 90. I have the urge to buy this lens.
 
The future M digital should have a mechanical shutter in order to continue the long tradition of M. This is no joke, M system has the best shutter in 35 mm photography. It also has the best optical systems from Leica and Zeiss to go with. M digital has to be full framed. Partial framing the M-system is a joke.
 
The new Zeiss lenses I have interest in are the 15/2.8 and the 85/2 ... both of which will be completely made in Germany. Specifically the 15mm is of interest for use on my Leica Ms

Chi, I'd be interested in what you are not happy about with the Contax lenses you mentioned. I've yet to find a Zoom from any other manufacturer the equal of the N24-85/3.5... especially that zoom range. IMO, there is none. The N17-35/2.8, considerably outperforms even the latest Canon 16-35/2.8L in terms of edge sharpness and correction of barrel distortion ... which I've demonstrated here by using both on a Canon 1DsMKII to shoot the same scene @ 17mm.

However, I do believe the N50/1.4 could have been improved in terms of Bokeh, and I lament that Zeiss/Contax never got to produce a N35/1.4. The N85/1.4 is actually an improvement over the C/Y mount 85/1.4 (I own both), but at the expense of size.
 
Back
Top