# Zenzanon vs. Zeiss?



## mcmunchy (Aug 29, 2011)

The question I'm asking is: has anybody noticed very much difference in quality (mainly sharpness, but also issues with color separation) between Zeiss and Zenzanon lenses? More specifically, on medium-format SLR bodies?

My boyfriend shoots with a Hasselblad 500cm; I shoot with a Bronica SQ-A. He prefers his because it has better looks and its name raises impressed eyebrows left and right. Personally, I feel that the quality the Bronica provides goes unnoticed, though; even with fairly large prints, the quality and sharpness hold about the same in both, at least to my eye. Plus, they're practically dirt-cheap for such high-quality setups, highly interchangeable (at least, the SQ-As are), and the interchangeable parts are seriously affordable themselves. My entire system, with 220 and 120 backs, 150 and 80mm lenses, a waist-level and metered prism viewfinder, cost barely $600. Including body. The Hasselblad system he has (3 backs, 1 lens, 1 viewfinder) cost roughly $1500. 

So what's he paying for, outside of a rugged body and a name? Because the Bronica has survived a fall down a staircase - it is a ridiculously hardy camera, and reliable as all get-out. Has anybody noticed any differences in sharpness and image quality between the two? Because I can't!

I was just wondering. Thanks!


----------



## Pgeobc (Aug 30, 2011)

In this quality range of cameras and, especially, with the two brands mentioned, you will get more picture quality variation because of technique and other technical issues, than you will get with the cameras. In other words, at this level the exact sharpness numbers and other things matter less than you do.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 30, 2011)

They're both great. Back in their heyday, Bronicas tended to be favored by wedding photographers, whereas Blad was more a mainstay of the commercial crowd.


----------



## IgsEMT (Aug 30, 2011)

Way back when no1 even thought of digital I used Zeiss on bronica. I miss that camera. 
Actually had a discussion with a friend about it - I wish more clients wanted film over digital it would be a reason to look into fi body Oh Yet Again BUT with today wedding ( last time I calculated each frame cost about $1 for a proof) it isn't cost effective ;( I miss the flavor lol
Sorry didn't mean to steal the thread just nostalgic.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 30, 2011)

IgsEMT said:


> Way back when no1 even thought of digital I used Zeiss on bronica. I miss that camera.
> Actually had a discussion with a friend about it - I wish more clients wanted film over digital it would be a reason to look into fi body Oh Yet Again BUT with today wedding ( last time I calculated each frame cost about $1 for a proof) it isn't cost effective ;( I miss the flavor lol
> Sorry didn't mean to steal the thread just nostalgic.



There are still people around who shoot weddings on film. It's possible but you have to have the reputation or skill to backup the prices. Most charge around $5K as their base rate.


----------

