Kodachrome Slide Shot with Rokkor vs. Leica Lens

<p>How would two slides compare, same exact seen, one shot with say, a Rokkor 35 f2.8, and the other,

the "Summicron" (Summilux?) corrolary? Could one see a difference hand-held with a loupe, or would it have to be

blown-up/projected?</p>

<p>I would submit that you will not really see much difference at all - unless shot wide open. Out of all the glass makers, Minolta was the most like Leica, and worked closely with them on several projects. Both Leica and Minolta (I believe Minolta actually learned this from Leica) were not into absolute sharpness, but the "whole picture". By that I mean a certain color rendition across the lens lineup, a certain look to the bokeh, a certain transition between sharpness and tone. However, Leica being Leica, probably had slightly better quality control, were much more expensive (even on the same lens), and their lenses seem to be a little sharper wide open in most cases.<br>

All else being equal, take the shot stopped down one or two stops from wide open, I doubt you would see any significant difference shot on the Rokkor.<br>

Both very good glass.<br>

Jed</p>

<p>Leica lenses may be a little sharper, but the difference is in color purity and saturation and contrast. You don`t need a loupe to see it. Spread them on a light table and anybody can pick out the Leica slides.</p>

<p>Some Leica designs began to show their age, though. The 50mm f2 was tested against some other 50mm lenses and its performance wide open was not as good (in terms of lines-per-millimeter) as some of the others. Only at the middle apertures did the Leica lens have an edge over some of its competition. However, there is more to a pleasing image than bagging the honor for most lpm at a given aperture. Also, consider sample variation (again, probably less of a problem for Leica). Very possibly the Maxxum 50mm f1.7 and Nikon 50mm AF f1.8 may have been above average samples in this test. Or if they hadn't done well, then average or below average. What am I trying to say? If possible, make you own tests. Even so, as others have said, the differences may be hard to see.</p>

<p>Run a test yourself. I did a similar test and learned more than expected. I ran the first half of a roll of E-6 film in my M6 with 50mm Summicron for several shots of a colorful subject. Then rewound the film and reloaded it into an EOS-1n with Canon EF 50mm 1.4 lens for the second half of the roll at same apertures/shutter speeds. The result showed noticeable differences in color brightness - from arm's length - of the slides on the light table. The Leica slides were also slightly sharper when examined with a loupe. The Canon was never the same to me after that. I'm curious how a Minolta lens would compare. Give it a try with Kodachrome in low contrast soft light, take notes, and post some pics.</p>

<p>"Leica being Leica, probably had slightly better quality control, were much more expensive (even on the same lens), and their lenses seem to be a little sharper wide open in most cases."</p>

 

<p>"Leica lenses may be a little sharper, but the difference is in color purity and saturation and contrast. You don`t need a loupe to see it. Spread them on a light table and anybody can pick out the Leica slides."</p>

<p>Sorry but Leica's quality control is not better than Minolta's was. When I sold both in my first job in the Manual Focus Days, Leicas came back alot more than Minoltas ever did. Minolta seem to also better Nikon and Canon in this area. To make a blanket claim that any one brand has better lenses cannot ever be substantiated. Some brands excel at a particular focal length and others dont. Given that Minolta made some of Leicas lenses, even more so no one could make that claim about their entire range.</p>

 

<p>Wow Joel, where do I begin, but maybe to say that you must be jokeing !</p>

<p>If you aren't, then two popular sayings apply to your last paragraph;</p>

<ol>

<li>I won't dignify your allegations with a response.</li>

<li>I won't cast my pearls among the swine...</li>

</ol>

<p>Joel,<br>

That's interesting to hear. Anyone that knows me will tell you - I've always been the biggest proponent of Minolta they ever had...but even I was not ready to plug them at quite that level! :-)<br>

There were some very good designs on the Rokkor lenses...and Leica did employ some of them in their own lineup, so the rest is up to speculation. But, I still think you'd be pretty hard pressed to tell between a GOOD copy of a Minolta Rokkor lens and an equivalent Leica lens. I'm sure there would be more difference in the look of a Leica lens compared to an equivalent lens of say, Canon. Minolta was one of the few companies that made their own glass and had control over every bit of the process. You could argue pro or con about that, but it made their "look" pretty consistent.<br>

I'm with the guys that say do a test - and show us the results! I'd love to do one myself, but never have been able to afford a Leica glass lineup, even on a good day. :-) I'm sure they are marvelous lenses, though.<br>

Jed</p>

<blockquote>

<p> To make a blanket claim that any one brand has better lenses cannot ever be substantiated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Strong words my friend...."ever"?</p>

<p>It would depend more on the condition of the two lenses and what your subject matter is. No way to know until you try it yourself.</p>