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

Leica R 50mm f1.4 E60 vs Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:
nixland wrote:
...By the way, I've seen a comparison shots between Leica first version, second version (E55?) and E60 in a website (I forgot not to bookmark it, but I'll find it), and the E60 bokeh is much smoother than the previous two.


I've only seen one comparison between the E55 and the E60 and the E55 had a softer Bokeh. I felt it was enough of a difference to actually make the E55 a better choice than the E60.

JJ


I just found the website I was talking about. Here it is :

http://imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/formh2000


PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
jjphoto wrote:
nixland wrote:
...By the way, I've seen a comparison shots between Leica first version, second version (E55?) and E60 in a website (I forgot not to bookmark it, but I'll find it), and the E60 bokeh is much smoother than the previous two.


I've only seen one comparison between the E55 and the E60 and the E55 had a softer Bokeh. I felt it was enough of a difference to actually make the E55 a better choice than the E60.

JJ


I just found the website I was talking about. Here it is :

http://imageevent.com/jonas_b/fmforumsmonthly/formh2000


That's an excellent comparison. Yes, the E60 does have softer/better Bokeh in these images compared to the E55. Interesting.

JJ


PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting indeed. The E60 has a faster DOF transition but also shows quite a lot more LoCA. Look at the digits 40 on the tape measure for instance.
Too bad that the shots were taken on a 4/3's camera though.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Interesting indeed. The E60 has a faster DOF transition but also shows quite a lot more LoCA. Look at the digits 40 on the tape measure for instance.
Too bad that the shots were taken on a 4/3's camera though.


look also near the digits 50 in the Photo10 ... the black object ...


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
only thing I noticed:

On dslr the old Planar MM couldn't compete with the Olympus 14-54 (closer distances).
The new Planar Zx seems to be much better!
It even replaced my favourite 50mm - the Pentax K 1.2/50.

With this I found a relevant progress in image quality compared to my best zoom lenses.

As for Leica:
I had a small Leica R equipment and loved the feeling of the mechanical quality!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here my two cents, as I own both lenses.

I own an early version of the Summulux-R, so it's not the sharpest incarnation, but I happen to like it anyway. It does have a vintage quality over it and if you hit the nail, the lens will sing.

The Contax Planar 50/1.4 is my all-time favourite. Mainly because it was the first MF lens I owned that blew my socks off, but when properly used, it is astonishing.

In many ways they are quite similar in how they behave. If you miss focus just a tad, or choose a bad background, your pictures will be dodgy, no rescue possible. Some other lenses are more forgiving. But if you get it right, you will cry tears of joy when you look at the pictures. Both lenses are capable of getting that much sought 3D-effect with much splendour. The Zeiss gives better colour and the Leica more film-like microdetails, generally speaking.

Below, I have chosen two comparable pictures, as both were taken during a fashion show. They were different events, but since I had some proper lighting around me in both cases, results are quite similar.

My conclusion is that I like both lenses and I will part with neither one of them. Without peeking at the captions, can you tell which is which?



Leica Summilux-R 50/1.4



Contax Planar 50/1.4


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is NOT FAIR, by the way... Rolling Eyes

How can someone compare lens with ASPHERICAL element (or surface) with a lens which DOESN'T have such a feature?

Planar is Planar and -- that's it Smile

I have a felling that picture taken with SUMMILUX is simply -- flat. hehe! Smile

tf

BRunner wrote:
Zeiss 50mm F1.4 Planar ZE vs. Leica 50mm F1.4 Summilux-M ASPH wide open bokeh and sharpness from www.pebbleplace.com

The images are self explanatory. Planar was introduced in early 70's and it is great lens, but is already overtaken by never designs. Summilux-M ASPH was introduced in 2004. According MTF graphs, 8 element Summilux-R will perform somewhere between these two lenses.

Planar


Summilux ASPH


Planar


Summilux ASPH


Last edited by trifox on Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:
I've never directly compared the Contax 50/1.4 (MM) with the Leica R 50/1.4 E60 and although I'm sure there are differences I sincerely wonder if it is worth the price difference



This is one of the main reasons i haven't bought yet a Leica R camera. The lens price is the double of the body ! :s

No doubt it's a great lens, but the formula is a Planar, so it's basically the same design.

That said i'm very happy with the Zeisses, may they be C/Y or ZF Cool


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
again, unless i'm missing something, at $2000 vs $350, if there is even room for debate on which is best, i'm saving $1700 and putting it towards 3-4 more planar T lenses! at that price disparity the leica needs to absolutely blow the planar out of the water. i honestly dont understand this fascination with leica that would cause people to spend exhorbitant amounts of money for 'maybe' marginally better performance than other low cost options.

i have a summarit 50/1.4 that cost more than the planar T, but performs about the same as a $100 yashica ml 50/1.4!


Because they last a long, long time. Look at a 40 year-old Leicaflex lens and a 40 year-old Minolta lens and you'll see what I mean. Those of us who buy Leica are not stupid.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
babu, who said anything about 'stupid'? i didnt say it's stupid to buy whatever one wants to buy and pay as much for it as you like, so i dont know where youre coming up with that. what i said is it makes no sense to compare lenses that have such a huge cost disparity--whats the point? as i said, a $2500 lens should blow the doors off any $350 lens, in every area, in every basis of comparison, shouldnt even be close. so i dont understand the passion generated by those who have to nitpick their way to eeking out marginally better performance to justify their expenditure. no justification necessary, we all have the right to buy what we like without justification. but dont argue we all should be considering the leica at 10 times the price when its only (arguably) better than the planar.

and btw, my planars will outlive us both, as will your leicas.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
babu, who said anything about 'stupid'? i didnt say it's stupid to buy whatever one wants to buy and pay as much for it as you like, so i dont know where youre coming up with that. what i said is it makes no sense to compare lenses that have such a huge cost disparity--whats the point? as i said, a $2500 lens should blow the doors off any $350 lens, in every area, in every basis of comparison, shouldnt even be close. so i dont understand the passion generated by those who have to nitpick their way to eeking out marginally better performance to justify their expenditure. no justification necessary. but dont argue we all should be considering the leica at 10 times the price when its only (arguably) better than the planar.

and btw, my planars will outlive us both, as will your leicas.


Not all of the cost goes to 'optical superiority': that is my point. Much of the cost of a Leica lens goes to painstaking manufacture and testing. Every lens is tested thoroughly by expert testers. This is not the case with other manufacturers The manufacturing uniformity is also the best. So, though you may find a really good lens from another maker, there is greater sample-to-sample variation. With Leica lenses the variation is much smaller. All this costs money....

Also, the cost to achieve only a slight improvement is often very high. This is known as the "law of diminishing returns".

What you are saying in your post does not reflect reality. There are limits to what can be done with serially manufactured lenses, and Leica usually is at the limit. Most lenses in their line are state of the art when released and usually for many years thereafter. So, you cannot expect the $2500 lens to "blow the doors off any $350 lens, in every area, in every basis of comparison". That's not realistic.

I can tell you that I own and have owned several samples of the original 50mm Summilux-R, from 1969, and I did test it around 1973 against the then-current Nikkor, and it did indeed "blow it away". I used the same roll of Panatamic-X in both cameras and a Paterson test chart. The Leica lens designer's approach was obvious. In the very extreme corners there was some fall-off , and as I understand it this helps make the rest of the image (the 98% that matters) much better. (This area is covered by the slide mount anyway.) Overall contrast was much superior, coma was less, etc. There was no comparison.

Erwin Puts writes in detail about these matters and is a good source for information.

The second-generation 50mm Summilux-R is supposedly a gem, but it took 30 years for Leica to improve upon the first generation. That's how good it was!


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
just as you have the right to buy whatever you want and pay whatever price you like, i have the right, whether you think its 'realistic' or not to expect a $2500 lens to totally and demontrably outperform a $350 lens in every conceivable category. i buy lenses for image quality period, not for family heirlooms or for feelings of superiority. my purchases are performance based, not ego based. i dont care a whit for what a company puts into manufacturing a lens if i can achieve the exact same IQ at a tenth of the price with another product. to me, the implication of that is leica is not getting out of their products what theyre putting into them, and that seems pretty ineffective to me. you are certainly allowed to feel differently, but please dont tell me my point of view is unrealistic as its pretty realistic to a whole bunch of folks who havent drunk the leica kool aid.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
just as you have the right to buy whatever you want and pay whatever price you like, i have the right, whether you think its 'realistic' or not to expect a $2500 lens to totally and demontrably outperform a $350 lens in every conceivable category. i buy lenses for image quality period, not for family heirlooms or for feelings of superiority. my purchases are performance based, not ego based. i dont care a whit for what a company puts into manufacturing a lens if i can achieve the exact same IQ at a tenth of the price with another product. to me, the implication of that is leica is not getting out of their products what theyre putting into them, and that seems pretty ineffective to me. you are certainly allowed to feel differently, but please dont tell me my point of view is unrealistic as its pretty realistic to a whole bunch of folks who havent drunk the leica kool aid.


Which $350mm lens do you mean (this one, or the next one off the line?), and after how many years of rugged use? You do know that there is more sample-to-sample variation in other lens lines, don't you? You do know that Leica mounts are more rugged and durable, don't you? You know that the mechanical quality is important too, don't you? If not, I just told you, above. As I said before, it's not just about "IQ". There's a whole lot more to it. QA/QC costs money. Rugged mounts cost money. Better glass with better physical and optical properties costs money. You might want to read up on this this some more so you can have a better grasp of the factors involved. Erwin Puts is a good source. You did agree that Leica lenses usually outperform other makes. The question in your mind is the margin, right?

The glass Leica uses to achieve superior image quality is much more expensive, made in smaller lots, in some cases custom-made. Other makers use cheaper glasses. The raw glass cost alone in Leica lenses often exceeds the retail cost of other makers' finished products.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
perhaps there is a language difference at work here, so let me try to be clear:

1-ALL i care about from my camera equipment is IQ, nothing else concerns me. i especially dont care about anyones manufacturing process. because my only concern is IQ, i DO NOT care that you believe leica products are better made, EVEN IF I BELIEVED IT WERE TRUE, which i do NOT.

2-i do NOT agree there is less product variation for leica than certain other products. i knoe enough people who have had actual crap leica products to know this is not the case. your saying it is so does not make it so, as i do not acknowledge you as the ultimate decider of factual reality.

3-i do NOT believe leica products are inherently superior to all other products. ive owned leica products--lenses and cameras--that could not compete with contemporary equipment i also owned in the areas i care about.

4-in this particular comparison of zeiss planar 50/1.4 with leica r 50/1.4, the leica MAY yield MARGINALLY better IQ, but nowhere near an amount better that would justify the ludicrous cost disparity.

5-these are OPINIONS not FACTS. you cannot change opinions by fiat and you can not create facts through fanatical opinions. you are entitled to yours and i to mine.

6-not much more is to be gained by continued exchange here. i'm happy you love leica. be happy i and others dont or prices on this gear would be even more ridiculous than it is now.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exaklaus wrote:
Guess it was MM.
I had the Cron, too, but comparing with the Summilux at f2 made me sell my Cron.
So everyone makes different experiences! Wink
Klaus


For me it was the opposite: I had both, and sold the Lux.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rbelyell wrote:
perhaps there is a language difference at work here, so let me try to be clear:

1-ALL i care about from my camera equipment is IQ, nothing else concerns me. i especially dont care about anyones manufacturing process. because my only concern is IQ, i DO NOT care that you believe leica products are better made, EVEN IF I BELIEVED IT WERE TRUE, which i do NOT.

2-i do NOT agree there is less product variation for leica than certain other products. i knoe enough people who have had actual crap leica products to know this is not the case. your saying it is so does not make it so, as i do not acknowledge you as the ultimate decider of factual reality.

3-i do NOT believe leica products are inherently superior to all other products. ive owned leica products--lenses and cameras--that could not compete with contemporary equipment i also owned in the areas i care about.

4-in this particular comparison of zeiss planar 50/1.4 with leica r 50/1.4, the leica MAY yield MARGINALLY better IQ, but nowhere near an amount better that would justify the ludicrous cost disparity.

5-these are OPINIONS not FACTS. you cannot change opinions by fiat and you can not create facts through fanatical opinions. you are entitled to yours and i to mine.

6-not much more is to be gained by continued exchange here. i'm happy you love leica. be happy i and others dont or prices on this gear would be even more ridiculous than it is now.


What you pay for is far more than "IQ". That's my point. Mechanical quality is often just as important. I used to sell photo equipment. One of my favorite 'tricks' was to give someone a Leica lens, ask him to squeeze the lens barrel on the focussing ring, and try to turn it. No problem. Then I'd hand him a Minolta or Olympus lens, and ask him to do the same thing. The expression on their faces was priceless, when the lens locked solid. It's fine if you disregard or ignore these things, but they do matter and they do cost more.

My Leicaflex SL2 is still going strong after 35 years. In all that time I have had one shutter-related problem (last year).

Last edited by Babu Bhatt on Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Babu Bhatt wrote:
You do know that there is more sample-to-sample variation in other lens lines, don't you? You do know that Leica mounts are more rugged and durable, don't you? You know that the mechanical quality is important too, don't you? If not, I just told you, above. As I said before, it's not just about "IQ". There's a whole lot more to it. QA/QC costs money. Rugged mounts cost money. Better glass with better physical and optical properties costs money. You might want to read up on this this some more so you can have a better grasp of the factors involved.


Mr. Babu Bhatt,
I don't want to enter your discussion (although I think that some of your arguments are trite slogans). But I don't like your tone.
You can keep discussing the subjects, but you can not address your interlocutor with such patronizing arrogance.
Please take this as a warning.

Orio
admin.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Babu Bhatt wrote:
You do know that there is more sample-to-sample variation in other lens lines, don't you? You do know that Leica mounts are more rugged and durable, don't you? You know that the mechanical quality is important too, don't you? If not, I just told you, above. As I said before, it's not just about "IQ". There's a whole lot more to it. QA/QC costs money. Rugged mounts cost money. Better glass with better physical and optical properties costs money. You might want to read up on this this some more so you can have a better grasp of the factors involved.


Mr. Babu Bhatt,
I don't want to enter your discussion (although I think that some of your arguments are trite slogans). But I don't like your tone.
You can keep discussing the subjects, but you can not address your interlocutor with such patronizing arrogance.
Please take this as a warning.

Orio
admin.


Some people know what they are talking about, some don't. The person saying that the price difference is 'absurd' is being arrogant, not me. I'm simply trying to enlighten him.

Last edited by Babu Bhatt on Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:47 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Babu Bhatt wrote:
Orio wrote:
Babu Bhatt wrote:
You do know that there is more sample-to-sample variation in other lens lines, don't you? You do know that Leica mounts are more rugged and durable, don't you? You know that the mechanical quality is important too, don't you? If not, I just told you, above. As I said before, it's not just about "IQ". There's a whole lot more to it. QA/QC costs money. Rugged mounts cost money. Better glass with better physical and optical properties costs money. You might want to read up on this this some more so you can have a better grasp of the factors involved.


Mr. Babu Bhatt,
I don't want to enter your discussion (although I think that some of your arguments are trite slogans). But I don't like your tone.
You can keep discussing the subjects, but you can not address your interlocutor with such patronizing arrogance.
Please take this as a warning.

Orio
admin.


Some people know what they are talking about, some don't.


You are taking a dangerous downhill. I'm not the kind who likes to repeat warnings.
But for sure I won't let this forum become another dpreview-like brand-wrestling arena.
Forewarned is forearmed.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Babu Bhatt wrote:
Orio wrote:
Babu Bhatt wrote:
You do know that there is more sample-to-sample variation in other lens lines, don't you? You do know that Leica mounts are more rugged and durable, don't you? You know that the mechanical quality is important too, don't you? If not, I just told you, above. As I said before, it's not just about "IQ". There's a whole lot more to it. QA/QC costs money. Rugged mounts cost money. Better glass with better physical and optical properties costs money. You might want to read up on this this some more so you can have a better grasp of the factors involved.


Mr. Babu Bhatt,
I don't want to enter your discussion (although I think that some of your arguments are trite slogans). But I don't like your tone.
You can keep discussing the subjects, but you can not address your interlocutor with such patronizing arrogance.
Please take this as a warning.

Orio
admin.


Some people know what they are talking about, some don't.


You are taking a dangerous downhill. I'm not the kind who likes to repeat warnings.
But for sure I won't let this forum become another dpreview-like brand-wrestling arena.
Forewarned is forearmed.


Read what he wrote, then read what I wrote, and then you'll see who's being arrogant, sir, and who has the belligerent tone.....not me! I am simply pointing out the complexities of the issue, which the gentleman seems to be unaware of.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Babu Bhatt wrote:

Read what he wrote, then read what I wrote, and then you'll see who's being arrogant, sir, and who has the belligerent tone.....not me!


I did.
Rbelyell wrote his opinions.
You replied about how ignorant he is and you listed things that he needs to take as true because you say it.
And you did all that in a pedantic reiterative style.
I am tired of this discussion.
I don't want to hear any more words from you about my warning.
The thread is closed, you stay warned.
Bottom line.

Orio
admin.
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2