Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85 f2.8 versus Leica Elmarit-R 90 f2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I've been reading and postiing on MF Lenses for a good few years but I've become exasperated with the recurrent, pointless denigration and/or nit-picking comparisons of certain lenses - whether it's the $5 Domiplan or the $1700 Elmarit. When I first started visiting the forum the emphasis was on what we could actually do with our old lenses on digtial cameras, not the now prevalent situation with questions like "Which is the best lens for me" or the usually pointless and often aggressive assertion that "Lens X beats lens Y so lens Y isn't good" or "Lens b costs ten times as much as lens c so it's not worth buying".

Are any of us really so blind that we can't recognize that ALL the lenses that get denigrated at different times here are actually wonderful picture making tools? Or that we can choose how we spend our own money? Is it not time to stop regurgitating what others assert and get back to celebrating what we have rather than knockiing what we haven't?
.


Like 1 small
Luckly HERE is about (mf) lenses.. In some other forums is about digital camera brands so its even worst. Wink

As principle, even for aficionados - like me, lenses are just "tools" to photography!
In one hand what one paid for them, how use then, what results can get from them, etc, etc... and in other hand "fair price" or value of a lens is very very relative!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
..some people here think they must preach Erwin Puts because he is the god of lenstesting and are shocked if somebody will disagree


If you consider me as part of "some people" I have to disagree. I certainly do not consider Erwin Puts as god of lens testing. However, sometimes his writings are a good source to mention if it comes to differences within the Leitz lens production lines. He has certainly a very good knowledge and insight of the subject.

Just to make clear that I don't believe everything just because Puts was telling it. My final judgement comes always from the comparison of the pictures as I have mentioned also in my respective comment about the picture from "Uhoh7" which tells more than any judgement from Puts.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
memetph wrote:

I think you should review again your thread about DDR lenses. You allowed yourself a lot .....

I repeat it once again: in a dispute about a technical issue argueing about the attitude of your contradictors is for me simply to be banned.
It is stupid ,it says more about yourself than about the topic.
Think behavior not attitude, everything will run better in social life.

I have no problem with provocation . It is a sane intellectual process especially on forums .


Believe it or not: The issue is far more problematic as discussed in this thread. In the meantime documents have been found which show the involvement of highest political circles up to the chancellor/political leader in charge of both countries. Two weeks ago there was a detailed report even in the official German TV (ARD) showing all those criminal business relationships between BRD and DDR. Like it or not. You can't change the history just by denying the truth.

If some folks here don't like to be faced with the truth it's their personal problem but certainly not mine.

And yes, sometimes it may happen that I am loosing somehow my nerves particularly when people don't accept historically proven facts.

Some people also encouraged me to continue to participate in the discussion and I received a lot of private messages because of this. I have to admit that I am sometimes totally loosing any sense of humor if some folks are provoking without any idea of the subject itself. That may be a weak point of my personality. Nobody is perfect. However, I would never attack somebody without a good reason for that; i.e. I am just shooting back and will never throw the first stone. That is certainly not my stile.

So our personalities seems to be obviously very different. I would for instance never say that your behavior is stupid like you've done it here in your message. That's far below the standard of a normal controversial debate between intelligent adult people. Sorry. On such a low level I am not prepared to continue any further discussion with you at this very moment of time.


I think it is reasonable decision. Reading your "answer" , it is clear that you misunderstand what I said. A real communication issue.
It is not problem . Forum is an open society . Just ignore my posts ans I shall do the same.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
If you consider me as part of "some people" I have to disagree.


I'm sorry to disappoint you... I would have said this also if you wouldn't be part of this thread.. it's not always about you.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
..some people here think they must preach Erwin Puts because he is the god of lenstesting and are shocked if somebody will disagree


In an age of countless quick internet "tests", and rampant anecdotal generalizations, Puts is an honest broker and meticulous. He is also accessible.

You think he is a Leica Fan boy? If so you don't read his blog. He's not exactly over the moon about the Q.

If you want to learn about a particular aspect of english history, who do you go to? The average student, or somebody who has spent their life in the study of that period? Of course he/she may get it wrong. We are always skeptical.

Puts is a helpful guide to me. But in the end it's how the lens is working as to whether I use it or file it.

In the old days some magazines did careful lens tests. Today Lensrentals is doing serious testing which provides real data. But good reference is not always easy to find. I love to see it from Puts or anyone that careful.

As to nit-picking. Sure "lenses" are "good". The entire scientific revoltuion is essentially based on the development of lenses and their application. But I can't have them all. LOL I have to choose one or the other.

Since I joined this forum I choose many lenses which now I don't use. They were good "for the money". In the end I spent way more money following the lowest prices, than if I had just bought a great lens set to start with. But I learned alot and continue to do so.

I left the forum for a while because I bought a 28 summicron, and showed it here. Ian and various supporters attacked the lens. I was a fool. It was "nothing special" etc. When I responded, I was criticized for it. The 28 summicron is so obviously an exceptional lens I found the money based, and anti-Leica reaction really well over the top. Then as now, Ian joined every thread of interest with very strong personal opinions, of vague basis.

"Leica R lenses. Nothing Special" I am a member of many forums and have read alot of prejudicial, irrational comments. None trump this statement, recently made by Ian.

Now some people here will say: "Oh Charlie, you're the same. You think they are all the best".

But in fact I have never said such a thing, and I don't believe it. Take this thread, which has been a very good one, despite the battles, because the versions have become clear and the relations between the R and M 90 Elmarits: have I attacked the Zeiss lens? I did say I'd prefer better bokeh for portraits. Otherwise I have said nothing about it all, and I wish others would so I can learn more. Moreover my impression of the 2 Leica 90s (v1 and v2) is totally different. So do I think the reverse of Ian, all Leica R lenses are exceptional? No.

Another difference between my "opinions" and Ians': I'm ready to be shown wrong and acknowledge it, as I have here and in many forums. I had my own anti-Leica prejudice for several years, but it was gradually wiped away when people in forums pointed out here and there that no, this or that statement I'd made was not the case. Scamsbrook caught me just the other day on Summitar vs Summar and I learned from it Smile TYG he took the trouble. Ian, on the other hand, I seldom if ever, saw him revise a view. Money and Lens performance are wrapped together.

Sometimes I ignore it and sometimes not. Smile

At least if you pay over a grand for a 90 Elmarit-M you probably get a decent lens. You pay 1600 today for a brand new FE35/1.4 and the copy variation is so high and chances of a great one so slim, it make the Leica seem like a steal.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests

Does that mean all Zeiss lenses are bad? No, the one in this thread looks great. Smile

Last edited by uhoh7 on Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:28 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 - this guy has some serious issues. No properly sane person takes things such as opinions on lenses so personally or gets so wound up.

Therefore I shall ignore his ranting and raving, it's so childish.

I will respond to this statement though:

Quote:
"Leica R lenses. Nothing Special" I am a member of many forums and have read alot of prejudicial, irrational comments. None trump this statement.


Wow, what an over-reaction, calm down for gawd's sake!

I have had 4 Leica R lenses, 2/50, 2.8/90, 2.8/135, 2.8/35. All were good. However, they were no better than the equivalent Carl Zeiss Jena, Konica Hexanon or Minolta Rokkor and not quite as good as the Zeiss T* equivalents.

Maybe I need better eyes to see some mystical special quality the Leicas possess? 'Leica glow', 'breathing colours' or 'stunning clarity' or whatever else the fanboys come up with to justify the high prices they pay for Leica glass.

Bottom line, I like any lens, regardless of maker or price that I enjoy using. The ones that become my favourites are those that offer something others don't or give me extra pleasure to use. I failed to see anything special in the 4 Leica R lenses I tried.

Is that simple opinion something for anyone to get worked up about? No, not at all, therefore it;s best to ignore the crazy person who it upset.

Apologies to the people who were trying to discuss optics options in the 80-90 range, hopefully the discussion can return to this track.

My favourite lens in this range currently is a Schneider Cine-Xenon 2/90. I liked it so much I went to the trouble of fitting an iris and aperture.

Sharpness at f2 is rather good:





Bokeh is just how I like it - smoooooth:



I never directly compared them, but I preferred this Cine-Xenon to the Leitz Colorplan 2.5/90.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:
tb_a wrote:
If you consider me as part of "some people" I have to disagree.


I'm sorry to disappoint you... I would have said this also if you wouldn't be part of this thread.. it's not always about you.


Now I'm really disappointed. I really thought that the joint forces of the rescuer of the forum wanted to get rid of "tb_a" as their first agenda item of every day,

Maybe I have to overthink my strategy once more in order to motivate my best friends here again......

BTW, sometimes I'm really sad that my mother language isn't English. In German my answer would be much better. However, I sincerely hope that my intended message to you is somehow understandable in English as well.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And what about the Hexanon 90 2.8 M mount ?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
One member writes of another contributor to this thread ". . . this guy has some serious issues. No properly sane person takes things such as opinions on lenses so personally or gets so wound up"

People - perfectly sane and decent people can get wound up by a repeatedly contentious patttern of behaviour which is seemingly not grounded on a firm basis. Post hoc explanations or justifications do nothing to mend matters, nor does the introduction of the proverbial red herring, no matter how well intended it may be.

Maybe it's time this thread was closed . . . Sad


PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
memetph wrote:
And what about the Hexanon 90 2.8 M mount ?


Isn't it the same lens as the Sonnar 2.8/90?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
topic live again


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:46 am    Post subject: Zeiss\Leitz Reply with quote
Since this thread has been rescued from oblivion, how about addressing the original question?

I will do it in a roundabout way, since
a: I only have the Zeiss (G) 90\2,8, and the Colorplan 90mm, but have had some of their relatives, so I am slightly disqualified from having opinions
b: when using manual optics, I handhold and snap away, so I can not really make any valid comparisons of quality.

But, from the point of view of optical evolution, I found the transition from the Tele-Elmarit (slim version, no haze) to the ElmarC (in the Minolta incarnation) a clear advantage. Higher contrast. The flat rear element did however, ensure unwanted reflections from the sensor, so I no longer have it. I would assume that the second version Elmarit does not have such nasty effects.

I also wonder whether the 90mm Zeiss is really the same as the 85 - as has been claimed.

p.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:31 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss\Leitz Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
Since this thread has been rescued from oblivion, how about addressing the original question?


That's indeed a good idea. However, I don't want to be boring but from my point of view in this thread already too often apples and eggs have been compared.
May I therefore stress once more to be utmost clear as to which version and subversion of the lens in question is referred to.
I don't know about the Zeiss part of the story but at least from Leitz I know of 5 different versions (M and R) and at least the RF Elmarit (5/3) in version I has two sub-versions.

In other words: It's far more complicated to find a meaningful conclusion as most probably originally expected.

BTW, I have only the RF Elmarit (Leica-M bayonet) in Version I (newer sub-version). I like it very much and it is superior to my other comparable RF lenses from other manufacturers, although I didn't make any direct comparison test up to now to be 100% sure. However, at least as from F5.6 it delivers really perfect looking pictures and even when used fully open it's more than only usable. A nice extra feature is the detachable lens head for macro use either on Visoflex macro tube or on bellows.

Just my 2 cents.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Does anyone in the forum own the 85mm Zeiss lens AND any version of the 90mm Elmarit-R? Seems to me that 15 minutes spent using the lenses together might be worth a whole day spent reading about what others say . . . interesting though that may be.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Does anyone in the forum own the 85mm Zeiss lens AND any version of the 90mm Elmarit-R? Seems to me that 15 minutes spent using the lenses together might be worth a whole day spent reading about what others say . . . interesting though that may be.


Stephen, that's indeed a very good suggestion. However, as we already know, most people have either or. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:13 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss\Leitz Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
I also wonder whether the 90mm Zeiss is really the same as the 85 - as has been claimed.


The classic 5e/4g design has been around since the Contarex and was originally designed by Walter Woeltche; the 3.5/100 is the same calculation scaled up slightly.

Here's a pretty good comparison of Leica 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M vs the Contax G 90mm f/2.8 Sonnar T*

http://www.imprezzion.com/jl/blog/?p=157

He concludes they are roughly equal, with the Leica being a tiny bit better wide open.

Marco Cavina compared them too:



He concludes that the Leica is slightly ahead due to better control of CA which is because it uses more exotic modern glass types than the classic Sonnar design.

You can see the schematics here, on the right:



The Leica has replaced the cemented pair at the rear with a single element made of high refractive index glass.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2019 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I own a copy of the Sonnar 85mm f2.8 QBM and it can't be any sharper even wide open. It's as sharp as a lens can be. It probably outresolves 24MP fully open, but I cannot tell - compared to many other (great and expensive) lenses, it appears to come with "built it sharpener", at least with the humble 24MP of the A7ii. It renders skin beautifully, but I sometimes like more things like an f1.4 50mm or even 100mm f2. The Sonnar is probably too accurate - it's bordering in hyperrealistic. That's why it also why things seem to pop, as the edges of what's in focus and what it's not is very marked.

I think something like the 75mm f1.5 would not be as good as it may make part of the edges of the subject blurry and water down the 3D effect. As other have said, other lenses are very different. For a magical look I use the Minolta 1.4 with Thorium -it just renders colors magically- (but don't eat the lens), or Jupiter 85mm f2 which has breat character and flaws that are flattering many times. While 85mm is my least favorite focal lens, the 85mm Sonnar has to be my favorite lens, even with it's slowness. I just can't seem to understand what's so wrong out the pictures that look as if a magical sharp algorithm without any of the artifacts sharpening would create.

Its problem? Too damn sharp.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3