- Messages
- 4,926
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Are Zeiss lenses 'magical'? - UPDATED - now bought one!
- Thread starter philthejuggler
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,509
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
+ another. Couldn't agree more.
- Messages
- 7,821
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For information the two shots from the 35/2 I posted were (aside from re-sizing for posting) as shot.
OP
- Messages
- 7,168
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
UPDATE! I've now bought a 100mm Makro Planar.
My initial impression is that there is something about the rendering that I really like and I can see that there is the potential for capturing a certain feeling of depth in the photo.
I've only just got it and haven't got any great examples yet. The one below is vaguely headed in the right direction though...
Phil
My initial impression is that there is something about the rendering that I really like and I can see that there is the potential for capturing a certain feeling of depth in the photo.
I've only just got it and haven't got any great examples yet. The one below is vaguely headed in the right direction though...
Phil
Congratulations on the new lens, there does seem to be something appealing and distinctive about the rendering.
You are paying £2500 for a Leica 50mm f/1.4 vs £250 for a Canon version, if it isn't something special then Leica are doing it wrong.
- Messages
- 13,582
- Name
- Dean
- Edit My Images
- No
One born every minute.
Costs loads, must be better! I couldn't justify spending that much on a lens when there's something similar that does a great job for a tenth of the price. I'm sure it's just great, but is it really that much better?
The Canon 50 f/1.4 isn't in the same league though.
You are paying for some exotic glass, high quality control and hand made lenses. You get what you pay for.
Way I see it it'd have to be a hell of a lot better than Canon 50 f/1.4.
Maybe I should say to my boss that the specs I glaze are made with love, care and high quality control and assembled by hand. Then he can up his margins. I'm sorry, but £2500 for a lens when there are great alternatives with AF is a bit rich.
- Messages
- 6,732
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its not rich, just different. It all depends on you view on it and what you want from your equipment. And the second hand value of a leica lens will often be higher than new at present, for once a bit of photography kit that is an 'investment'!
Its not rich, just different. It all depends on you view on it and what you want from your equipment. And the second hand value of a leica lens will often be higher than new at present, for once a bit of photography kit that is an 'investment'!
I want good performance IQ wise and fast reliable AF. I have a MF lens which is great to shoot with, but I really value AF and with a lens as fast as the 50 f/1.4 for example, the depth of focus is such that I would rather rely on the AF system to get the focus right. To sacrifice that for exotic glass and quality control just doesn't seem worth it to me. :shrug:
That said it's something that's going to get more and more expensive as time goes on so it certainly would be an investment.
- Messages
- 6,732
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,847
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Its not rich, just different. It all depends on you view on it and what you want from your equipment. And the second hand value of a leica lens will often be higher than new at present, for once a bit of photography kit that is an 'investment'!
The way I see it is the 'brand addiction'. Don't we all love red dot [of Leica] or partly eaten sour Apple?
Leica's are handmade in Germany and drives the price up. They are built well (100x better than canon 50/1.4) however optically Canon is very capable, and has accurate AF. I doubt that the slightly out of focus Leica shot is worth more than the more accurate canon shot.
However under 50mm canon just doesn't have anything worthwhile and very fast under £1k. Under 24mm there is only 17mm TSE that is actually good. That's where Zeiss get's the most sales from Canon users. Above 50mm there is just no real need.
- Messages
- 6,732
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you may find that a number of slightly out of focus leica shots are amongst some of the most revered photos in the world. I don't think you will find HCB's shots were always in focus!
I think this all comes down to what you appreciate in photography. Some like the gear, some like the act of taking the photo and others like the end product. I, for one, just don't understand the fixation on technical quality (sharpness, 'bokeh' quality etc) and prefer the process of taking (and developing) photos. As for Phil's new Zeiss, it has that 'look' that I used to get from the contax G lenses I had. It's that 3D pop that you get more often with Zeiss lenses but it does definitely happen with lots of other lenses too.
- Messages
- 1,738
- Name
- Lloyd
- Edit My Images
- Yes
rssmrry said:
Rangefinder focusing is a whole different ball game compared to manually focusing an SLR though, for example I find it super easy to nail the focus on a 50/0.95 and M9, whereas I have a hell of a time doing the same on a F3 and a 50/1.8... Maybe I'm a weirdo though.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,847
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you may find that a number of slightly out of focus leica shots are amongst some of the most revered photos in the world. I don't think you will find HCB's shots were always in focus!
The same can be said of works taken with Canon / Nikon. It doesn't answer why Leica is worth more / better (or is it?)? Subject matter... name of photographer...
- Messages
- 6,732
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nikon probably... The old F was the other great photojournalist's tool of a similar era to the M3 etc...
- Messages
- 8,251
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If leica and Contax lenses work for you, and the cash is of no great importance, then what is the problem?
Personally I could not justify the extra cost, but that's my choice.
Mind you, comparing 30 year old lenses with modern equivalents, will prove nothing....
One of the problems with Autofocus systems is that they are not very accurate. The margin of error permitted by canon is surprising indeed.
Personally I could not justify the extra cost, but that's my choice.
Mind you, comparing 30 year old lenses with modern equivalents, will prove nothing....
One of the problems with Autofocus systems is that they are not very accurate. The margin of error permitted by canon is surprising indeed.
- Messages
- 4,926
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Phil, that shot has the classic Zeiss look. You will have a lot of fun with that lens 
