Does anyone have a photo that compares the superiority of leica lenses?

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Ocean Physics,

 

Your point is well made and well taken. With a web shot, who can see the difference?

 

To take your argument further: I've just been doing a piece for The Large Format Journal (www.thelargeformatjournal.com)about format and quality. In the course of sorting pictures for it I became well convinced that composition and subject far outweigh format, even with original prints.

 

Then again, it's always easier to take good pictures with your favourite equipment, and yes, you CAN see the 'sparkle' in (say) a 75/2 Summicron shot. But it's a bonus, not a make-or-break for the shot unless the image is borderline anyway, in which case quality may tip the balance.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com -- and compare the China monochrome galleries (Leica/Voigtlander/Alpa) and the digital still life galleries).

[kelly_flanigan1]

Note that the Leica lens doesnt help the film grain.

[tito sobrinho]

"Hi I have been arguing with my dad that leica lens are better"

 

Years ago, I was in the same position i.e. arguing with my friends at the local camera club. Leica this!, Leica that!

 

Epiphany! When I found the Nikon F, MF, and later, the LF negative.

 

Following Joel's dissertation, I have a question: Is the aspherical element in the leica lenses made of "plastic"? Who makes them?

[nels]

What if you're unable to find the proof that you're looking for?

 

What will your daddy say then?

[eliot_rosen1]

"Following Joel's dissertation, I have a question: Is the aspherical element in the leica lenses made of "plastic"? Who makes them?"

 

AFAIK, to date, the aspherical elements in Leica M lenses are made of glass. They used several different processes to fabricate them, including hand grinding and polishing (earliest), glass molding, and the use of a computer controlled CNC lathe.

 

In addition, all current Leica M lenses are made by Leica in Germany. As far as I can recall, the only M lenses not made by Leica were the two Super-angulons (21/4 and 21/3.4) and the 15/8 Hologon. FWIW, these lenses were still made in Germany, by Schneider and Zeiss, respectively.

[x-ray]

Gregg:

Sorry to burst your bubble. I've shot Leica and many other systems professionally for over fourty years and Leica is excellent but there is no superiority of any one brand, canon, nikon, zeiss or leica, over one another. Each maker makes a particular lens or lenses of one or more focal lengths that might be better than one of the same focal length in another brand but the other brand will have the leg up on the others on a given lens or two. There is absolutely no magic in any lens or brand of lens. The magic is in the photographer not the equipment. I still have 5 M bodies and thrirteen lenses that I use on a regular basis but I also have a trunk full fo canons L glass and 1DsmkII equipment that is supreme in some areas. My SLR film equipment is Nikon and in my opinion kicks the pants off all other SLR systems on the market, canon and leicaflex included. It all depends on desire and need as to what is the best.

 

I might make a little side note here. I recently purchased a Nikon S3 2000 model with the updated 50 1.4 Olympic. I compared it to my tabbed 50 summicron (current formula) shooting exactly the same shot with some backlight and the nikkor brutally walked over the summicron 50. This was tough for some of the hard core leica freaks to handle but facts are facts. The 50 nikkor 1.4 olympic 2000 compares very very closely with my current asph summilux 50. Get this, the entire package of the S3 2000 and olympic 50 1.4 costs $100 less than the Leica summilux asph. The Nikkor is built like the 50's vintage which means it is built like a tank.

 

I will burst your bubble again, my 85 1.2 canon L is sharper and as contrasty wide open at f1.2 than my new 90mm apo asph summicron at f2. Stopped down the summicron asph does not pull ahead of the 85 f1.2 at comperable apertures. Also my canon 135 f2 is absolutely the sharpest 135, even wide open, that I have ever seen and my 200 canon L f1.8 will walk overy virtually anything in sharpness. Construction quality is also up there. My canon 35 f1.4 walks all over the 35 f1.4 zeiss distagon that I once had and ewuals if not slightly exceeds the performance of my 35 summicron 4th generation.

 

I'm not saying Leica is bad but I am saying that they are superb in some areas and not as good as others ins other areas.

 

Why use a leica:

 

1) focus under extremely poor light

 

2) size

 

3) quiet

 

4) durability and reliability under poor conditions

 

5) simplicity

 

6) overall small and conpact lenses with very good overall

performance

 

They are suoerior for some work but not all. Anything 90mm and below are fine but tele and serious macro are out. Wide lenses where a finder is required is a pain to be accurate in framing. SLR's shine where the RF fails.

 

90% of my work in my gallery was shot with M leicas. You can see from some where Leica excells.

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

[eliot_rosen1]

"I compared it to my tabbed 50 summicron (current formula) shooting exactly the same shot with some backlight and the nikkor brutally walked over the summicron 50. This was tough for some of the hard core leica freaks to handle but facts are facts."

 

Can you show us the comparison shots? Thanks. Eliot

[x-ray]

Elliot:

 

I've todded the shots so you'll have to take my word.

 

I just wanted to add alittle more. In cove fourty years of shooting for clients like Esquire, UPI, AP, News Weef, Life and manymany more magazines and some of the largest corporations in the world like Union Carbide, Exxon, Phillips Electronics and many others, I have developed more than film, I've developed a very critical eye for quality. I've hears so many myths about leica that I could throw up. I've heard all about the magic in their lenses, the glow and even how much better the 4x6 color prints are from CVS. I've even heard that images shot with leica lenses have to be prionted on softer grades of paper and negatives exposed with leica lenses require no dodging and burning. What have I learned from experience and these statements, these people are full of BS and are only fooling themselves. The magic and the glow and all the other myths are as real as the easter bunny and santa clause.

[nels]

Don,

 

Amen!

[nels]

About time someone posted a pic with Canon 85L @ f/1.2.<br><br>

<center><img src="http://mk29.image.pbase.com/o4/35/596435/1/55101098.AttentiveListener.jpg" width=800></center>

[rj]

Don, I appreciate your view of equipment and your advice and am in no way trying to start an argument. I agree with most of what you said about equipment, and yes, it is always the photographer that makes the shot, its always the inner eye and the craft of the photographer.

 

I did look through your portfolio and for some reason I knew right away your picture titled "Mountain Man" was not shot with a leica lens, I can't explain why, but I knew and this is just from looking at the "contact sheet" of your folder. It doesn't have the same look that the picture titled "Mennonite Children with Kitten" has, and that is the look that I like to call the "Leica look."

 

I use a variety of different camera systems and have been able to compare several m lenses that I own to several Pentax lenses that I have and the "leica look" is present in the leicas, not in the Pentax lenses. I won't say which is the best or which is better, its too subjective and subject dependent, but the differences do exist.

[x-ray]

The reason the Mountain Man looks different is that it was shot with the canon 85 @ f1.2 on a canon 1Ds. There's nothing in the leica line to compare to the super shallow DOF of this lens at 1.2 . One of the reasons I stil shoot B&W film for much of my B&W work is the gritty look of film. Digital is just too clean and even adding grain doesn't make it look like film. I work exclusively in RAW format and build my own look in digital but it's different than 35mm film. To me it's just too clean and looks too much like MF fine grain film. That's good for somethings but not many of my subjects.

 

Don't get me wrong, I just bought two new MP's and a couple of new lenses. I love the Leica system for some work but not all. Saying Leica is the best is about as valid as saying 16x20 contact prints are the best. No one system will do everything and no camera / lens maker makes everything the best. Each system and maker has something good to bring to the table. That's why I own a number of systems from 35mm to 8x10.

[jerry_lehrer]

Gregg,-- It's like religion. Ya gotta be a believer!

 

C'mon, drink the Kool-Ade!

[fotografz]

I've todded the shots so you'll have to take my word.

 

I presume you mean toggled the shots.

 

So, we must take your word, but others with a different experience or perspective aren't

valid in their observations?

 

Just mildly curious as to what the Canon shot proves Nels? That f/1.2 features shallow

DOF? IMO, A Contax 85/1.2 does the same thing only better.

 

However, having used all these systems also, I'd agree the differences can be minutiae.

However, in some cases they're not.

 

I can tell a B&W shot taken with a Leica from a B&W shot taken with a Canon. Also, to me

Canon color has always been a tad pastel in feel. Don't care why or whether it's actually

true or not. It's my experience, so it's my reality. If you prefer one over the other then

fine. Diversity is what makes the world go around. Personally I'd hate it if there was only

one global camera company and you had to take whatever they gave you.

 

If Canon wasn't AF and offered some really fast L glass I wouldn't be using the stuff. But it

does, so I do. Depends on what you need to get the job done.

 

This is an art, and squabbling about why one artist likes to use a certain brush where

another likes a different brush is a waste of breath.<div></div>

[x-ray]

I ment to say tossed the negs and files.

 

I used the Rollei 3003 system for a number of years and loved the 85 1.4 planar but haven't used the 1.2 . I would assume the 1.2 to be a stellar lens too. As to the ability to pick out transparencies or prints from one brand of lens to another, I have never seen anyone that could consistently do this without guessing, particularly B&W. I'm talking modern lenses not older glass when there was a real difference. I'm glad you can do this, you must have quite an eye. My experience in RF glass was that canon did have softer color but that was most likely due to coatings. I will also agree with you that I hate the fact that Canon does'nt make a manual focus camera. Most of the camera makers, particularly canon, have made the focusing system bright but made it nearly impossible to manually focus. When I need an SLR I still go back to my manual nikon bodies for SLR film shooting for that reason.

 

I'm curious about your findings with the Nikon S3 2000 Olympic 50 1.4 . What were your findings compared to the tabbed Summicron 50? Did you do a backlit comparison too?

[Allen Herbert]

Also, to me Canon color has always been a tad pastel in feel.

 

Of course you could also argue that Nikon colour (colour spelt correctly....one has to constantly correct the colonists they tend to drift from the civilised world)) is a tad Walt Disney. You could argue Zeiss lenses are a tad too contrast and lack tonal width. You could argue Leica lenses are seriously expensive and do not really justify their price tags....

 

It's all rather an ethereal argumentﾅ.as the saying goes 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.<div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

The reason the Mountain Man looks different is that it was shot with the canon 85 @ f1.2 on a canon 1Ds.

 

Ha,ha,Roger,you got that one wrong. That will teach you to try to judge on a 72dpi monitor screen�your own advice. Anyway, how come Francis has all the cheap Voigtlander stuff and you have the classy Leica gear? My wife would have soon sussed that one out.

 

Enjoying your work in the AP,mate. Jeez, i even have a burning desire to buy a black paint MP (all that brass stuff coming through) and a 75mm just to feel the ambience of it all.

 

Regards

Allen

[x-ray]

Allen:

 

CORRECT! Nice COLOUR! I'm trying to learn.

 

In 42 years as aprofessional I've never had a client tell me I wouldn't be hired if I didn't shoot with a Leica or any other brand. I've never had a client tell me the "colour" was too pastel or too contrasty. I've made equally as good images with all systems that i've owned and used. In the end it comes down to a refined need for one system over another or a comfort factor of one over the other. I use M leicas for the six reasons I mentioned above but i also use canon digital and nikon SLR's.

 

I've learned much over the years. When I was in college i owned and shot three Leica M's, in the 60's. A good friend who was a young PJ too shot with Nikon SP and S3's. I always lusted for those cameras and finally purchased one last year. My S3 is a fantastic camera on the level of the Leica M's but I've shot tens of thousands of rolls, mostly B&W, with my M's and as much as I love the Nikon S# I just can not get used to it. Everything turns the wrong way and the release and wind are in the wrong place. I absolutely hate the infinity lock for the 50mm. That's why I use my M's for work and play and use the S3 for fun only. Nothing wrong with either system but it's a matter of preference and comfort.

 

My point, don't get caught up in thinking one system is going to make you a photographer, I won't. The most important element in photography is not the camera or lens but what's two inches behind it. Don't get caught up in the myth about this brand or that brand. Most shooters that I see are not refined enough to know the difference in cameras and lenses if they didn't know which image was shot with what camera and lens. Do not tell me you can, I do not believe it. After shooting a hundred thousand roll plus I feel fairly competent and can honestly say even I can not tell what was shot with what.

 

I've recntly been going through my vintage negs to print a new portfolio of museum presentations. Since 1968 I've shot a number of different brands but mostly Leica or Nikon. I am unable to tell what images were shot with what system with only a few exceptions. I had canon SLY equipment for a while in the late 70's and early 80's. I ran across a shot the other day that I knew was shot with my 20 canon, it was very soft at the edges. My old canon FD sucked to be honest. This is the only one that really stood out.

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/X-Ray

[bob haight]

Alvin that cannot be right, the Nikon image is blurred through camera shake or scanning.

[paulmoore]

wow hundred thousand rolls!!, that is about 10 rolls a days, six days aweek, 50 weeks a year

for about 33 years..

your finger must be tired.. and you had to edit .. hope you had others printing..then there

was the large format work as well!! wow.

[x-ray]

I shot film up to 11x14 and still shoot limited 8x10. Not much any more but at one time I was shooting 250 sheets of 8x10 per week plus 4x5. I've had a couple of retail fashion accounts where I shot 75 rolls or more a day three days a week sometimes. This went on for years, Thirty to fourty rolls of medium format on a job was not unusual. I turned two Nikon F4's and three Rollei SL66's into saw dust from the inside out.

[Brad_]

Agree with Don on many points. And he has the experience and great photos to back what

he says up.

 

In the end (within limitations of course), the success of a photo is rarely solely driven by

minute differences between lenses. Composition, great eye, great light, timing, skill, etc.,

rule. Using leica equipment does not substitute for any of those qualities. People that

think otherwise are either trying to justify an equipment choice, or feel that photographic

skill can be had simply by "buying the best."

[x-ray]

Brad:

 

You are on the money.

[thomas_sullivan]

now here's a guy who knows how to see great light........nice pics Don.

[nels]

Marc,

 

The pic I posted above was posted to prove exactly the same point you've been attempting to prove with your pics....nothing...not a freakin' thing, dude.