Which lens is better; Carl Zeiss or Leica

[singdude]

Seems the cost of the camera using this lens is higer.

[Hexlord]

Are u planning to get a Sony or Panasonic camera?

[singdude]

I already have Sony DSC F828 which uses Carl Zeis lens, I was thinking of getting either Panasonic, FX9 or LX 1 or Leica D-lux 2

Originally Posted by Hexlord Are u planning to get a Sony or Panasonic camera?

[photobum]

IMHO, neither.

It all depends on how well you use your lens. I can produce equally sharp images with a Japanese lens.

[student]

Strictly speaking you are not really asking about leica versus zeiss lenses.

You are talking about Sony with a Zeiss versus Panasonic with a Leica.

In such cameras, there are a lot of other factors that come into play in producing an image. For your purpose, I suggest you look at the camera as a whole. As far as lenses on cameras like the digicams, I agree with photobum. Any lens be it Canon, Nikkor, Fuji, Minolta, etc etc are all capable of getting sharp images.

BUT if you talking generically speaking, of lenses alone, with no regards to cameras, I think photobum's comments still apply.

In today's technology, quality lenses (not the cheaper versions of any brand - But Leica never has cheaper versions!) from any of the major lens makers are all very good. There can be such differences as lens coating to give slightly different renditions of colors etc. But the difference is more of a taste than "which is better".

But if we look at the "making" of lenses as a whole, in my opinion, no lens maker makes such robust lenses as Leica.

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

also to add on to what student has said, the leica and zeiss lenses on Sony or Pana cams are not really the full fledged lenses. they are a VARIO (variant) of their famous Sonnar, Elmarit lenses.

and yes, do look at the cam as a whoole package. it's not just the lens that makes the pictures. toher factors count too.

[YOL925]

"vario" is not "variant", but means "zoom" IIRC .

not sure what is full-fledged lens but the tiny leica zoom lens on the Lumix LX1 is awesome.

[madmacs]

can we expand this topic to cover slr lenses as well? has anyone done a comparison of both brands before?

[Isaiahfortythirtyone]

YOL925: i stand corrected. thanks for the tip

[schon]

Originally Posted by Isaiahfortythirtyone also to add on to what student has said, the leica and zeiss lenses on Sony or Pana cams are not really the full fledged lenses. they are a VARIO (variant) of their famous Sonnar, Elmarit lenses.

Originally Posted by Isaiahfortythirtyone YOL925: i stand corrected. thanks for the tip

so how are these lenses different from the "fully fledged lenses"?

[user111]

both are well known fakes

[Artosoft]

I will say Carl Zeiss is better than Leica.

But my friend says Leica is better than Carl Zeiss.

Both are superb.

Regards,
Arto.

[student]

Some years ago, I took identical images with a Leica ASPH, a Carl Zeiss and a Canon L. All 35 mm at f2. Not a "scientific" test, but just to see if differences were significant to "ordinary" "real life" viewing.

Slides. Results reviewed in a light box.

Showed images to several people, photographers and non-photographers.

Conclusions

1 All images were very sharp. No problem at all

2 There are definite differences in color rendition. Interestingly, 50% of viewers preferred the Canon images.

My conclusion: based on sharpness alone, there is little to chose between these lenses.

The color rendition is a matter or personal choice.

Without doubt Leica DO NOT make bad lenses.

Carl Zeiss makes lenses for "everybody" else - buit I think the standard is very high.

Nikon and Canon have very good professional lenses, but also rather suspect ones.

I also use largeformat lenses. I use Schnieder, Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikkor, CZ lenses. (Leica do not make LF lenses. Canon also do not make LF lenses). Again apart from differences like contrast and color rendition, they are all capaable of good imagery.

Bad imagery is not the problem of the lenses, but the photographer.

[lwt11137]

i personally still prefer the leica's len as the texture and depth is so beautiful, whereesle i found the zeiss abit soft. just my own view.

[YOL925]

Originally Posted by user111 both are well known fakes

Real....ly ??
But then again, imitation is the highest form of flattery.

BTW, canon started off producing "fake" Leica after WWII.
Don't take my words for it, check it out:
http://www.cameraquest.com/crf2f2.htm

[Feinwerkbau]

This reminds me of an in-depth 'Nikon' vs 'Zuiko' test done by a popular photography magazine (Peterson Publishing) in the 80s. Both systems are used by the world's leading photojournalists, notably interesting was that the majority of Magnum photographers (Robert Capa) used Olympus whereaqs the rest of the world used Nikons. Of course, if you know the reputation (and fomidable cohort) that Magnum formed, you'll realise the impact of them using Olympus systems over Nikon's.

Anyways, what the lab and field tests revealled was that both manufacturers produced top-notch lenses, but that one (Nikon) had slightly higher colour saturation, whereas Zuiko lenses produced more neutral results. And one astute observation made was that perhaps Zuikos were 'deemed' to be less sharp because the OM (1s and 2s) system viewfinders included more field of vision at a lower magnification, whereas Nikons included less, but at a higher mag, hence leading people to 'feel' that Nikons were sharper, when in fact both systems produced lenses of equal sharpness.

So, I guess it all boils down (a lot) to perception and personal preferences. I know of folks who would swear by their LOMOs! LOL!