[Leica] The Zeiss Choice

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

>snippet< will have come across Leica in their research for the
> latest toys.
> The price difference between leica and zeiss will be no factor for people
> who are willing to spend these amounts of money.Without a doubt in my mind
> these newcomers ,and i know a lot of them over here, will have spend a day
> or so on the web researching and come to the conclusion thaty Leica,s are
> the ones to have.

>snippet<

This Leica vs. Zeiss thing going on here is fuzzy and frustrating as it's
not clear what we are arguing against. What the sides really are.
It making for many a bad argument and fuzzy thinking I think.
Or visa versa.
Lets define the argument much more I think it really needs it.

Is it quirky old fogey priced high as the sky Leica... Against modern priced
to sell Zeiss...?
This does not compute.

Zeiss modern glass is not any more priced to sell than Leica is.
For me and most of the people I know it's quite the opposite.

This only thing in my little glass menagerie which makes my Leica glass look
cheap in comparison is my Zeiss glass. And most of my Zeiss (for Hasselblad)
glass was bought longer ago and more of it bought used.
Getting a Zeiss lens for me has always been a bit of a bigger deal requiring
a bit more financial finagling in most cases.

That's not what we're really got in front of us here.
We are talking about a whole different ballgame.

A good analogy which just hit me is in the SLR world.
(You know those cameras where there's no little window on the side you look
right though the lens itself that takes the picture?)

A good analogy to our shaky comparison we are making is Leica R glass
against Zeiss made for Contax glass. Kyocera.
Glass worth hundreds against glass worth thousands.

It would be cool as heck if those cheap looking little T# marvels could hold
up against Leica R glass costing sometimes a decimal point more cash.
And there are a very few who like to think so. Kyocera users. Owners. Some
of them very nice people I know one or two.

There's the hold the Zeiss Contax Kyocera in your left hand and your Leica R
in your right and then weigh them back and forth and check them out test.
Your first hunch would be you clearly get what you pay for.
When is that not the case?
Seldom. I always root for the underdog though.

Leica has to charge more sure because it's a very small company and every
screw cost them a dime instead of a tenth of a cent but I think what we are
mainly paying for is a class higher tolerances and materials. The kind you
don't get in hundred dollar lens.

This is not a Zeiss against Leica comparison folks.
I think Zeiss gives Leica a run for it's money with plenty if it's mouth
watering awesome lenses. The 38 Biogon on the superwide. The 100 for the
Hasselblad. And the 120 macro and the 180.

But Leica is the smaller more inspired company turning out even juicer gems
in my humble option. The problems of comparison is that few of what Zeiss
makes at home is for 35mm format any more.  Zero for quite a while until now
I think. It's been medium format Zeiss world for quite a while. And you
can't make a direct comparison between formats.
You can't hold two 16x20s side by side and call a winner.
A Pentax medium format with a 200 dollar lens will make a richer, more
vibrant image than 35mm Leica costing ten times more. So will a chump change
Rolleicord.
Real estate pays.
Location location location. ???

I had hoped that Contax Zeiss made in Japan might make a more realistic
option over what seemed to me a formable Leica R system about 5 years ago
but checked it out and the Contax stuff looks and feels worse than most
third party glass. Although the images it makes I think are more than ok and
make an interesting comparison against Nikon Canon in some instances.
But used Leica R glass is a stupendous deal!

I think what Cosina does in Zeiss's name will be better than what Kyocera
did. Or does if they are still at it. Not sure if it's a past tense thing
yet a lot of it has gone under with that system. The non-AF system went
under last year. That's what I almost got into 5 years ago. I don't think
the N AF system is doing well. It's digital camera bombed for that. They
sent a dozen out and not one worked they called them all back and closed it
down.
You don't I'm very glad by the way hear much about the G system any more. .
Comparing that against the Leica M system always infuriated me.
"Apples and oranges" we said again and again on the LUG. Cyclically.
"Dancing and architecture" was also mentioned intermittingly.

I'm just saying lets define out argument here.
This is not a Zeiss against Leica comparison.
This is a cheap Zeiss made by other people thing.

Few have the ability to blur the realities of these very real differences
away. The stuff is DAY AND NIGHT! from each other.
BED & BOARD! JULES AND JIM!
It takes three Tiffen #3 fog filters epoxied to the front of your glasses
with a few low contrast and Zeiss Softars glued on the back.
With a rose colored filter rare earth somewhere in the middle.
Then squint and stand back.
Dim down the lights.
Down a few single malts.
Light up a funny cigarette.

We don't know what Cosina will do its not overly embarrassed itself in the
past. And shown us plenty of inspired ideas made with above average
tolerances most of the time. They feel they want to be competitive and hit
the meat of the market and not be so nietze like a Leica.
But so far comparing Zeiss made by remote non-control against Leica is an
insulting argument. Always has.
And unless I'm mistaken always will be.
As Cosina is not a complete unknown to us Leica people.

Compare Leica makes in Solms against the stuff Zeiss really makes in
Oberkochen near Stuttgart.  On the banks of the sunny Kocher River!
That's an argument we can sink our teeth into.



(Wonder why the river is Kocher? Are their shrimp in it?)


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/