[Leica] Re: Test reports on Leica M and Contax G lenses?

["Lucien_vD@compuserve.com" <Lucien_vD@compuserve.com>]

I've shot with the Leica M system (although I do NOT own it) and I own th=
e
Contax G2 with 5 of its 6 lenses, now (haven't yet purchased the Hologon
and
probably will not ).  I really think that assigning optical quality as be=
st
between the two systems needs to be done on a lens by lens basis.  =

My personal opinion is that the Contax G-series Biogons (21mm & 28mm) bea=
t
their Leica counterparts.  The Leica 35mm Aspherics beat the G-series 35m=
m
Planar (in my opinion, the weakest of the 5 Zeiss lenses for the G2 I've
used)
hands down but it holds its own with the Leica 35 f/2.0 non-aspheric mode=
l
(meaning no better, no worse -- both are somewhat soft in the corners wid=
e
open).  I'd rather have Leica's 50 f/2.0 than the G-series 45mm Planar by=
 a
very slim margin but I think that the G-series 90mm f/2.8 Sonnar easily
beats
the 90mm f/2.8 M-series from Leica.  =


I've tried to keep my comparisons fair by limiting the competition to
similar
focal lengths AND maximum apertures.  Also, this is just my informal
opinion
based on my own usage of the two systems.  =


If I could have my druthers, I'd have both systems but my wallet can't
justify
the strain.  For my use, the Contax represents the better compromise of
features and lens quality as I will be using the 28 and 90 most often and=

the
21 occasionally.  I won't often need the 45.  Unfortunately, 35mm is a le=
ns
I
have used as a normal.  I will probably opt for the slightly wider 28 mos=
t
of
the time and use the 35 closed down to at least f/5.6 or smaller, where i=
t
excels.

Ed Hassell
<GaySatyr@aol.com>