Zeiss vs. Leitz

[wave]

I heard from a guy recently that there was a debate going on in
an enthusiasts club newsletter about which lenses are better,
Zeiss or Leitz. After a while, the consensus pretty much was
that Zeiss were the best.

Any opinions/comments?

David - shoots primarily with Zeiss Tessar/Rolleiflex and Nikkor.

--
Question : How have recent developments in interactive technologies
affected your work and / or attitude towards "live" performance?
Laurie 212 : Tehy've improved my typing somewhat.
***** From: America Online 10/31/94 - Live chat with Laurie Anderson *****

[Pascal Meheut]

wa...@u.washington.edu (wave) writes:

>I heard from a guy recently that there was a debate going on in
>an enthusiasts club newsletter about which lenses are better,
>Zeiss or Leitz. After a while, the consensus pretty much was
>that Zeiss were the best.

I don't think you can say globaly that a brand is better than another one
globally, especially with top-quality optics. Some Zeiss lenses may be
better than some Leitz lenses and vice-versa.

If you refer to CI tests, Leitz lenses are better but this is just one
kind of test and one point of view which you may trust or not.

--

Pascal Meheut
pas...@cnam.cnam.fr

[dr8...@albnyvms.bitnet]

In article <3lg9hk$21...@nntp2.u.washington.edu>, wa...@u.washington.edu (wave) writes:
>
>I heard from a guy recently that there was a debate going on in
>an enthusiasts club newsletter about which lenses are better,
>Zeiss or Leitz. After a while, the consensus pretty much was
>that Zeiss were the best.
>

>Any opinions/comments?
>
>David - shoots primarily with Zeiss Tessar/Rolleiflex and Nikkor.
>

Since the names Letiz and Zeiss do not, in and
of themselves, indicate good optics, why debate
it at all ? In dealing with either company, you
need to seperate the goats from the sheep, same
as any manufacturor. This is a real non-issue.

- dr

[Marc Small]

This is an idiotic question: there is no single standard for a "best" lens.
Define your standards as to what YOU want, then find the lens which most
closely meets these needs. YOUR needs are not mine, nor are mine
someone else's!

Zeiss designs for absolute sharpness, resolution, contrast, and colour
saturation; Leica has historically designed for final image quality and that
produces a much different optick. (See, for instance, the intro to Rogliatti's
fine Leica and Leicaflex Lenses, 2nd ed., for a discussion of this.)

I use Leica (M6, M4, a passel of lenses); I also shoot Zeiss (Contax RF, Super-
Ikonta B, Ikoflex II and IIa, Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar, Hassie 2000FCM, Rollei SL
35ME, Icarex). Both lens families are truly superb but they are NOT seeking to
reach the same goals!

Either Leica or Zeiss lenses, however, come FAR closer to meeting my
individual needs that does, say, the lenses of Canon or Nikon or Mamiya or
the like.

Beannachd leibh,

Marc

[David Jacobson]

In article <3lk0l1$o...@lucy.infi.net>,
Marc Small <msm...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote:

> Zeiss designs for absolute sharpness, resolution, contrast, and colour
> saturation; Leica has historically designed for final image quality
> and that produces a much different optick. (See, for instance, the
> intro to Rogliatti's fine Leica and Leicaflex Lenses, 2nd ed., for a
> discussion of this.)

I'll try to find Roglaitti, but in the meatime, how is "final image
quality" defined if not in terms of "absolute sharpness, resoultion,
contrast, and color saturation" or some similar list. It seems to me
that "final image quality" is meaningless unless you list how you
quantify final image quality.

-- David Jacobson