Contax Makro vs Leica Macro

[Guest]

I heard Macro lenses of Leica are superior to those of Contax. Is that true?
Especially 100mm Macro of Leica is Apo-Macro whereas Makro of Contax is just 100mm Makro.
Has anyone used both of lenses?
Please compare these lens in terms of overall performance, color redintion and sharpness.
Thanks!

 

[Guest]

About 12 years ago I decided to buy me a Contax Equipment and not a Leica, and the reason why was the 2.8/100 Macro-Planar in comparison to the Leica.
Both optics are outstanding macro lenses. A comparision in practice is more or less senseless, you will never reach 100 % of the theoretical performance of this lenses.
I decided to buy a Contax because the Makro-Planar is able to focus from infinity to 1:1 without mounting any tube or close-up lens. And the other reason was the RTS III with the vacuum film back ...

And forget the term "Apo": There is no industrial standard definition, whether a manufacturer is allowed to use or not to use the prefix "apo" in the description of a lens. There are a lot of Zeiss lenses without "Apo" which perform much better than so called XYZ Apos.

Uli

 

[rpnagel]

There are MTF curves (by Erwin Puts) published for LEICA APO-Macro in the Leica Pocket Guide 7th Ed. (Lindemanns Buchhandlung german Edition, I paid CHF 48 at Foto Baeren in Zurich). Optimal aperture is f/5.6. in english => www.camerabooks.com LeicaPocket7thEd USD $35.95
Both german photo magazines rate the Leica R Apo-Elmarit-R slightly better.
--Rainer

 

[dirk]

I would trust MTF data published from Zeiss more than data published by a journalist who has by far not the knowledge than the lens designers from Zeiss.