I saw several "Leica vs. Contax" debates on the site the last few days, so I thought I'd share an article that might add some more fuel to the fire.

In 1998, PHOTO TECHNIQUES Magazine did a review / user report on the Contax G-2, in which the author, John Kennerdell, took the camera to Asia for some good old fashion street shooting. His article was pretty much positive towards the camera system, but to the credit of the magazine, a counter argument was made in favor of the Leica M system over the Contax in the form of a short blurb about such things as shutter lag and bokeh. It wasn't totally a one-sided "love fest".

One interesting point was a review of several standard lenses from Leica and Contax (and a couple of cheap Nikon and Canon AF 50s). This was presented in narrative form, and gave an aperture by aperture review of each lens. The author's basic findings (remember, this was the author of the pro-Contax article) was that the Leica lenses were better at full and close to full aperture and that at a certain mid-aperture point, the Contax 45mm lens came on strong. This is basically only opinion, based on looking at photos, not charts, but it is interesting to read.

I scanned and posted the review so that you may read it if you like. It should not offend any one, (except Canon people) and should be taken only as a guy that did some visual comparisons.

From PHOTO TECHNIQUES, July / August 1998 from an article written by John Kennerdell: Leica and Contax lenses compared

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), May 27, 2002

Answers

...the Leica lenses were better at full and close to full aperture and that at a certain mid-aperture point, the Contax 45mm lens came on strong.

Al: It sounds like his results confirmed conventional wisdom -- even as Leica promotes it. After all, Leica themselves (as well as Erwin Putts) claim that one of the big advantages of their glass is "the ability to use them wide open without concern for degrading image quality"...

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), May 27, 2002.

This is an interesting article. Thank you for posting it. It does speak very well of the 50 summicron. I haven't done side by side tests but I do own and use this lens and agree it is a wonderful lens. The article also confirms what I have come to learn: all lenses are pretty good at f8. I would add that I have the Nikon 50 f1.4 AF and think it also is a good performer.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), May 27, 2002.

very interesting is the note that the elmar was best at flare reduction. usually everyone says it was very prone to flare.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), May 27, 2002.

very interesting is the note that the elmar was best at flare reduction

Indeed. Before I got rid of it, the Elmar-M was the most flare-prone lens I had. Couldn't point it anywhere near the afternoon sun without washing out the entire frame.

Maybe not an issue in the USA or Europe, but here in Australia it's a killer!

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), May 27, 2002.

I can't help but laugh at the bit about "That is, what often appeared as one shade of green with the Japanese designs revealed itself as about three different shades with the Zeiss planar" - I have repeatedly been mocked for pointing this out on this forum. Ho hum.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), May 27, 2002.

Andrew, afternoon sun in the lens for flare is as much a killer in USA or Europe as down under. Why would it be different? Do you have a different sun? ;-)

-- Olivier (olreiche@videotron.ca), May 28, 2002.

The difference, Olivier, is like a flashlight versus a stadium full of lights. Check out the skin cancer rates, mate. Or try and keep a nice finish on your car, or ....btw Your do know that the sun is that ball that comes out from behind the gray canadian clouds, right?

-- CrocD (dfr57@abc.au), May 28, 2002.

Here are my two cents in the case Leica M versus Contax G: I use both systems with a buch of lenses for years and I like to use full aperture. In my opinion the Biogon 21 is as good as the Elmarit 21ASPH, the 45 Planar is as good as the Summicron 50 and the Biogon 28 is as good as the latest Elmarit 28 - even wide open. According to the very reliable lab test from the German magazine fotoMAGAZIN the Leica surpass the Zeiss lenses a bit on the optical bench, but in practice (side by side shooting on slide film at f2 and f2.8) I couldn't detect any significant difference despite of my 25x Nikon magnifier. Especially the Planar 45 and the Biogons are very very strong performers at full aperture. The only Zeiss lens I possess that is a bit behind Leica is the 90 Sonnar. Shots with my Elmarit-M 90 are visibly sharper and more contrasty at f2.8. At f5.6 both are sharp and brilliant as the proverbial tack. In general, quality of the Zeiss lenses is fully usable for available light photograpy at f2 or f2.8. I love especially the Planar 45 at f2 for indoor shots of my lively two year old daughter. BTW, I don't have any problems with the G2's autofocus. If there are blurred pictures it's not the camera electronics that failed, it's me ;-) IMO for an amateur it's just a matter of taste which of both systems he prefers - not a matter of lens quality. If you don't need f1.4 and if you are used to trust a camera autofocus the G2 with its excellent lenses for a reasonable price is a great choice. Don't get me wrong: I love my Ms and lenses like the 35/1.4 ASPH. or the Summicron 50 - especially wide open - but the wonderful lightweight titan G lenses are fully usable at full aperture, too. It's just a myth that only Leica is aible to construct lenses that are superior at f2 or f2.8. I have learned this lesson.

-- Frank Thoma (Thoma2811@aol.com), May 28, 2002.