DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Special Qualities of Zeiss Lenses

Leica and Zeiss are on the same level, with Leica going for creamy, dreamy tonality and Zeiss going for their famed "3D" effect. These lenses are more than sharp, they exhibit consistent character throughout the lens line, aiming for subtle effects that magnify into a "look" that, every now and again, jumps out at you on the light box.

Contax/Zeiss is usually less than half the price of Leica, but Leica isn't as brain-dead in their selection of lenses to manufacture: f/2.8 zooms and super-teles are available on Leica, but not Contax.

Canon L lenses are very sharp, but it's obvious the Canon engineers made sure the image was razor sharp, the colors super saturated, and then called it a day. They lack spark and sparkle, they lack character... it's a cold precision as opposed to the engaging beauty of the German lenses. (Well, except Schneider's lenses for Samsung, but that's a bitter tale we won't get into here.) There are those who insist that the colors you could get with the old Canon FD line were more engaging, and I'm inclined to believe them... the saturation of the L lenses it a bit too in-your-face, esp. with Velvia and Provia.

Pentax goes out of their way to give their high-end lenses character, not as sharp as their competitors, but with nice bokeh and lovely colors. They lack the sharpness, subtlety and tonality of Zeiss, tho.

Nikon... now Nikon's another story. If you shoot Velvia with Nikon kit, you are going to get subtly purple skies. This is because of Kodachrome... it was a gorgeous film, very high resolution, and very saturated, yet realistic, colors. Except reds... they always appeared a tad too muted to the eye. So Nikon got cute, and their optical formula emphasizes red, and for whatever deranged reason, they never gave it up. It's even obvious in their bleeding-edge Coolpix 5700. Rotten bokeh, too... but technically as sharp as many of the Canon lenses, in a keystone kops sort of way.

Haven't shot with Minolta, MF or AF, nor Olympus, nor have I seen a lot of images made with Minolta or Olympus in person, so I can't speak as to their qualities... I'm told that the MF Minoltas and Olympus lenses have a distinct and well regarded character, much like Pentax/TakumarSMC and Canon FD.

Matt Gabriel
 
the old FD-canon-lenses were too blue. i used olympus-om-line until 1978. they are never ever as sharp as zeiss. and a lot of troubles when compairing one 35/2.0 with a second one. no quality at open diaphragm. even one stop smaller. zeiss are the best, leica has better dust-protection.
 
Alot of people compare the quality of current lenses to those of one or two generations ago (especially in the Leica forums). I was wondering if anyone can make a comparison between the Zeiss SLR lenses (not the N lenses) which are older in design and the newer G lenses. Specifically I am thinking of those hard to define or sometimes subjective things such as "creamyness", "sharpness", "3D effect", "bokeh" etc. I would be interested to hear your opinions. Thanks.

Steve
 
Back
Top