Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Anyone who is really addicted to the Leica brand well knows Zeiss and the Zeiss Contax - which was Leica's head to head rival. Sorry, but I don't think the fact that Zeiss hasn't been in an M mount will make a damn bit of difference. I, too, would like caviar lenses at chicken nuggets prices, but it ain't gonna happen. But I sure don't want to pay a 1/3 premium just to say that the lens is made by Leica, instead of Zeiss. Caviar quality at middle prices beats caviar quality at caviar prices any day in my book. All of this, of course, depends upon the quality equaling or topping Leica's - and I haven't seen any of these lenses, used any of them, nor have I personally read any of the reviews. B. D. -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of mehrdad Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 1:40 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] New Zeiss lenses compared against Leica B.D, even though ziess has been around for a long time, they are a new comer in this format (M) and i think for them to capture market and be able to stay in it, the prices need to be around 1/2. i am interested in this lenses but i want to buy a lens as good as leica for half the price and i am sure you would too. so we have leica @ the hight end, ziess @ middle and voitlander @ the low end. very very nice On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:59:02 -0500, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote: > Sorry, Mehrdad, but this is the kind of thinking that's sinking Leica. > First off, why would anyone be foolish enough to pay even 1/3 extra > just to get the Leica name for lenses that are reportedly no better, > and perhaps not quite as good? And why would they do that when they > can get a name that means as much or more in the photography and > optical world as the Leica name? We're not talking Cosina here, with > good glass but mounts that are good, but not up to Leica quality. > We're talking Zeiss - Zeiss of Capa, Zeiss of Eugene Smith, Zeiss of > etc. etc. And if the lenses are as good or better than the comparable > Leica lenses, and as well made....well...If you insist on paying 1/3 > more, would you please instead consider buying the Zeiss lenses and > sending me the difference? > :-) > > B. D. > > -----Original Message----- > From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf > Of mehrdad > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 11:44 AM > To: Leica Users Group > Subject: Re: [Leica] New Zeiss lenses compared against Leica > > though ziess is a good name when it comes to lenses and quality, the > pricing 2/3 leica prices are too much, for "little" money you can by > voiltander lenses, and whoever is looking @ the ziess leica prices > range, i think leica wins as it is proven, > > if they can set the price point 1/2 of leica prices, they will have a > chance, pls listen ziess ikon people on the list > > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:55:00 +0100, Ruben <ruben@rhodos.dk> wrote: > > Karen > > > > Thanks for sharing the news - I was happy to hear about the > > OOF/Bokeh > > - do not care much for mtf i can not see anyway but a 25 and a 50 at > > 1/3 of the price sounds great :-) > > > > Ruben > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Karen Nakamura" <mail@gpsy.com> > > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2004 4:22 PM > > Subject: Re: [Leica] New Zeiss lenses compared against Leica > > > > > > > > >>Im asking to myself what's the point to compare so close things > > >>such > > > >>these. > > > > > > On the contrary, the ZI lenses are testing at the same level as > > > the Leica lenses but at one third the price. And the reviewers are > > > using > > > > them in conditions taht even Ted Grant would approve -- shooting > > > from the shadow side in heavily backlit portrait situations. They > > > do say that even the highest end zooms would flare out in these > > > situations but the ZI and Leica ASPH do wonderfully. > > > > > > They do mention bokeh and OOF (to reference another question). > > > They say they are roughly equivalent but the ZI is softer while > > > the ASPH generally are a bit harsher and thicker. > > > > > > These were all subjective tests using real photgraphs and real > > > models, by the way. Not MTF or lab tests. And contrary to what you > > > say, you can tell the difference even in a magazine reproduction. > > > All the lenses were tested wide open. Stopped down, the reviewers > > > say the difference disappears. > > > > > > All in all, I'm really excited by this news. If you're not > > > interested, then don't buy or read! :-) > > > > > > > > > Karen > > > > > > -- > > > Karen Nakamura http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more > > > information > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > -- > ------------------------------------- > regards, mehrdad _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- ------------------------------------- regards, mehrdad _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information