there have been numerous postings to the thread "Should I switch to Leica R from N****?" and the discussion is interesting and non-conclusive.

Now I'd like to stir up a another deliberation on lens quality comparison between CZ lenses made for Contax manual focus SLR and Leica R. What do you Leicaphiles say about Leica's real long time competitor? Although the current lenses are now made by Kyocera Japan, I find them are still in the top-notch class. They also have the better quality/value ratio. But what are the opinion from the field?

My particular interests are the 28/2.8 Distagon, 35/1.4 Planar, 50/1.7 Planar, 85/1.4 Planar and 135/2.8 Sonnar.

Thanks for feedback.

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), November 28, 2001

Answers

I am a fan of the CZ lenses.

Here are some photodo MTF based rating numbers.

Carl Zeiss

28/2.8 4.3

35/2.8 4.0

50/1.4 4.5

50/1.7 4.6

85/1.4 4.6

85/2.8 4.1

135/2.8 4.1

Leica R

28/2.8 3.8

35/2.8 4.0

35/2.0 3.8

50/2.0 4.5

50/1.4 4.3

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), November 28, 2001.

Dan,

Thanks for the MTF ratings. What I want to hear is user comments. the ratings alone look very positive for CZ lenses. But what do CZ and Leica users say about their lenses in the field?

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), November 28, 2001.

Optically, Carl Zeiss lenses are neck to neck vs Leica lenses. Build quality wise, Leica lenses are better, being all metal construction; Zeiss lenses use more plastic, not as silky smooth As for your lens line up, 50/1.7 Planar is too close to 35mm, I suggest change that to a Macro Planar 60/2.8, which is THE best macro lens in 35mm. 150 lpmm.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), November 28, 2001.

Practical comments; build quality - Leica's is outstanding, Zeiss's is exceptional (i.e. essentially the same). Leica uses thicker metal and more brass - Zeiss uses tubes a little thinner and more aluminum, so they're often lighter. The actual engineering is a tie.

RE plastic: The Zeiss 28-70 has polycarbonate tubes, as do the new "N" AF lenses - other Zeisses are 95-100% metal. But I just found out that the classic Leica-M pre-ASPH 35mm has a carbon-fiber/resin tube inside, which occasionally breaks and is the root of all those 35's whose front half can unscrew and cause lens-hood misalignment. So Leica does NOT mean 'all metal'.

Zeiss lenses, on average, have very high contrast - too much, in my experience. I often got Velvia slides in sunlight where the highlights were already blown out before the shadows started to show detail. Zeiss lenses also run magenta compared to Leica - faces in sunset light go very rosy with Zeiss while they go warm tan with the more green Leica glass (red light minus magenta = yellow). Also blue sky reflected in water tends to run purple with Zeiss, cyan with Leica.

Zeiss lenses, on the whole, tend to have more even sharpness across the frame wide open - by comparison, Leica lenses, esp. the pre-ASPH designs, tend to be very sharp at the center and fall off substantially towards the corners. Photodo rates them as equals, but in fact they have very different signatures, and it depends on whether you want the maximum possible sharpness in the middle (Leica), or better performance in the outer half of the picture (Zeiss).

Specifics: 28 f/2.8 - possibly the best of this focal length/f-stop made, but the Leica-R and -M and Nikkor AIS are so close that the difference only shows on charts. Seems like 28mm f/2.8 is the lens EVERYBODY does superbly.

35 f/1.4 - Tubs o' contrast - not terribly sharp at 1.4 and 2 (but not bad) much better below f/2. Very big and heavy (but so's the -R). I kept one a week - returned it to get the G2 and 35mm f/2 for better weight and f/2 image quality.

50 f/1.7 - Go right for the f/1.4 - very little more money, better bokeh, equal or better sharpness. The 1.4 was tested as the "best" 50 f/1.4 available (just one magazine's opinion). The 1.7 DOES have some plastic in the barrel.

85 f/1.4 - legendary, BUT.... It was incredible compared to the competition when it came out for the Contarex in the late 60s. Now the difference is much smaller. At f/1.4 it is roughly comparable to the 75/80 Summiluxes, and a tad better (contrast mostly) than the Nikkor 85 1.4s. By comparison, the following are all as sharp or sharper at f/2.8 - Leica Elmarit M/R, Contax Sonnar 85 f/2.8, Contax-G 90 f/2.8. The Zeiss is very compact for its speed. though.

135mm f/2.8 - IMHO the best short tele (for the money) available. Comparable to the M Elmar 135 f/4 (softer centers, sharper corners with the Zeiss). Eats the 135 M/R Elmarits for lunch. Ties the Nikon 180 ED- AIS. On a Zeiss 2x converter and stopped down one stop it beats most 250/300s. Rather kludgy lens hood design.

Zeiss does not offer much above 135. The long teles have a lot of chromatic fringing (no ED glass). Two exceptions - the 300 APO-Tessar f/2.8 ($13,000!) and the APO-Vario-Sonnar 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 zoom. I've only used the zoom, but it is a VERY sharp, clear lens (but tough to focus at f/5.6). Beat a Leica-R 250 f/4 (late version) and Nikkor 300 AF f/4 hands down in my comparisons.

IMHO the design of the Contax MF bodies (RX, Aria, RTS III, ST) is the best in the business - no segmented AE works as well as the Contax auto-bracketing at ensuring a good slide, and I do like shutter-speed dials instead of scrolling buttons and 'control wheels'. Just wish I could fit Leica lenses on them (sigh).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 28, 2001.

Fred,

Andy has said it almost all: Not much to add on my side. Just that I am very happy with my contax glass (which is not made by Kyocera, only the bodies are made there, but which comes from Zeiss, althogh some from japanese plants). I personally own the 35/2.8, the 50/1.7 and the 85/2.8 which brought me to quality lenses and finally to Leica. The following is more a user review than a objective test, but maybe it is interesting.

The Planar 50/1.7 is really a plastic lens, but a very well made one. Sharpness and bokeh are really more than ok, in sharpness this one might even be better than the legendary 50/1.4. I never found anything to critizize besides not being a f1.0 lens ;-). Both are among the best 50 mm lenses that are (as well as the summicron & lux) and definitely the best price / value ratio.

The 35/2.8 Distagon is also a nice lens, better build quality than the 50/1.7 due to an (almost ?) all-metal construction. Very good resolution over the field, and really a nice feeling overall.

THe 85/2.8 Sonnar is in my eyes the better lens than the 85/1.4: It has a very pleasant bokeh (I'm a sonnar / planar - fan), is very compact, not much bigger than a 50, which makes it almost an all- purpose lens. Picture quality is (comparing velvia slides) the same as the 50 as far as I can see. Great lens for candids, as most people think it to be a wide angle due to its size and act more casual.

I also once hat the old 40-80 zoom, which is of superb build quality (speak large and heavy), and picture quality is also very good. But zoom range is very limited und due to it's size and the fact that I'm no zoom-man I sold it.

Together with an Aria (or an old RTS or other small bodies like the 139, 137 or 167) these lenses make a very nice package, esp. for travel / hiking, which is easy to carry and delivers superb picture quality. Also these lenses are quite cheap, you may get the whole set for the price of a Leica M lens and get almost the same quality. Other lenses (esp. faster ones) are quite heavy and large, be aware if you want to carry these around. Esp. zooms have a build quality and size, which you cannot overlook. The 100-300 zoom is the one to get if you like to spend money, the 180/2.8 and the 200/4 tele lenses are also great -I'm currently looking for a cheap one but noone wants to part with his ;-).

As Andy stated, the lenses / coatings provide a bit of a reddish tone, which I found excellent with landscape shots, but you have to be careful with portraits st sunset - a filter is quite useful here.

I find myself right now using the Leica M for portraits, street and candids and the contax for landscape work and night shots, which together forms a nice package. I won't miss one of these !

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), November 29, 2001.

I would move forward soon if your serious, Contax has slowly and quietly dropped many manual cameras from their line and new manual lenses are harder to find. It would be interesting to see if any new manual lenses are still in production. Note, how long it has taken Contax to bring out the new autofocus lenses.

-- Bob Haight (rhaigh5748@aol.com), November 29, 2001.

Bob,

Your observations are correct. Contax/CZ are slow in bringing out new products and manual lenses are "unofficially dead". However, I've different prospective. Some Contaxians argue that the zero-degreed QC tolerance in design and production contribute to the slow product launch. This is particularly true for the AF N1 and several AF lenses. Other than the 24-85 and 70-300 zooms which were introduced with the N1, other lenses (50/1.4 and 100 Marco) were delayed and the early production stock was even scrapped before leaving the factory when they didn't meet the QC check and had to undergo redesign. If these are true, I'll be more confident in buying and using their cameras/lenses.

On the other hand, I don't mind investing money in lenses which will be out of production. I'm not trying to try/buy new lenses every year when the existing ones are really good. The current Contax/CZ lenses are really durable and I guess they should serve me well for many years to come.

With the similar quality (not necessarily same) and way better price/quality factor, is there really compelling reason to stick with Leica R system?

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), November 29, 2001.

Martin,

Which version of 60/2.8 marco are you referring to? The original/bigger one or the newer/compact version?

-- Fred Lee (leefred@cadvision.com), November 29, 2001.

Blame me, but to me it is just the leica badge. At least for the bodies, the Contax ones are really nice, Leica has (sorry to say that) really some old-fashioned bodies and, like in the M series, sticks to old habits. Contax is a bit more modern. Though Leica finish is a bit more leicaesque than the Contax finish.

The Leica glass is really fine, and more in line with the Leica M glass in terms of producing images than the Zeiss glass. Ans definitely more expensive than their Zeiss counterparts. But if you like to shoot long lenses you don't have much of a choice, the Zeiss lenses stop at a mere 300 mm while Leica has the edge here. Since the longest lenses I use are 200(+ maybe a TC), contax is the right thing for me. Ask Douglas Herr and you'll hear something different.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.blanke@iname.com), November 29, 2001.

>>>Ask Douglas Herr and you'll hear something different<<<

As far as I'm concerned, photography barely begins at 300mm:

http://www.wildlightphoto.com

I looked into the Contax RTS system when it was first introduced, and waited for suitable lenses... and waited.... and waited......

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), November 29, 2001.

Fred: The two Zeiss 60 macros have the same optics - the compact just doesn't focus to 1:1 by itself.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), November 29, 2001.

Douglas,

that's exactly the answer I expected.

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), November 30, 2001.

Fred, it is the newer compact one. Contax advertised it as the sharpest 35mm lens ever made.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 02, 2001.

Carl Zeiss glassses are genuine German glasses, made by Schott Glass Work. Leica glasses come from Hoya, Japan.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 04, 2002.

Martin, where did you get your information? I believe the vast majority of Leica glass comes from Schott. A lot of it (like the Noctilux glass) was actually designed by Leitz.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), January 04, 2002.

Bud

http://www.listquest.com/lq/view.cgi? ln=leicausers&mid=56456&sp=&q=leica+%2b+hoya&b=1&s=1&o=0&x=18&y=10

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 04, 2002.

That url did not work, try this Leica glasses

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 04, 2002.

Hoya, major supplier of glasses to Leica

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 04, 2002.

Martin, Hoya is A major supplier but not necessarily THE major supplier. Bud

-- Bud Cook (budcook@attglobal.net), January 04, 2002.

Martin, Hoya may be a major supplier but not necessarily THE major supplier. Bud

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), January 04, 2002.

Since Zeiss owns Schott glasses, and Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses are competitors, there may be some conflict of interest for Leica to disclose their glass formulation to Zeiss/ Schott. From trade secret point of view, it does make more sense to order glasses from a third party glass supplier like Hoya, which then makes the glasses to Leica's specification, and sold exclusively to Leica, then from a major competitor Zeiss in high end lens business

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 04, 2002.

Leitz actually sold glass formula to Schott. The famous Noctilux glass is an example. Schott then made this glass for Leitz. I believe that almost all the glass used in lenses designed in Wetzlar and Canada use glass manufactured by Schott although some of it was developed in Leitz own glass lab.

I believe that Leica buys glass from whomever makes what they need. However, I'd be willing to bet they still buy the majority of it from Schott.

BTW, Heliopan and B+W filters use Schott glass and B+W makes Leica filters.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), January 04, 2002.

Carl Zeiss makes broader range of camera lenses: 35mm, medium format and cine lenses.

Recent Lord of Rings movie was shot with Arriflex 435 535 cine cameras equiped with Carl Zeiss Ultra Prime lenses in New Zealand

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 05, 2002.

Carl Zeiss even teams up with Angenieux in digital cine lens business, the result is a 12 lens 10 group CLA 35 HD, a cine lens adapter for adapting Carl Zeiss Ultra Prime lenses and Angenieux zoom lens on High Difinition 2/3" digital cine cameras

Carl Zeiss is the king of optics, Leica is the prince

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), January 05, 2002.

Carl Zeiss is celebrating 100th birthday of Tessar lens

100 th Birthday of Tessar

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), May 28, 2002.