a little disappointed

[Robin Smith]

Bob

 

<p>

 

Like everyone else says a 4X loupe is really not enough to tell any

differences, but I also suspect that you are expecting too much. I

find that you need some time with any lens before you find out the

differences betweem them and whether you like them. The wider Leica Ms

are somewhat special I assume (28-21) but the others M and R are

probably less so. Also remember that many Canon L lenses have very

high prices too.

 

<p>

 

I have not done any tests except back in the mid '80s and perhaps the

landscape is very different now. Actually, I don't think it is really

except that zoom lenses improve. Back then I found that R glass was

superior to Canon and Olympus and this was noticeable when at wider

apertures, but over f5.6 you have a job to tell them apart. I like R

because in general I know I have the best/up with the best and

therefore I cannot blame my tools - also there are simply no other

manual lenses that have the same standard of finish and construction

as R today. It is a perennial issue this testing business but I doubt

that your test is really exhaustive - I am not sure I would go with

Martin's deep testing procedure, but one roll each seems not enough.

As an aside I also do not rate the E100 films (including 100SW) as

sharp by the way - they have very low grain, but this is not the same

thing. I think you might find more differences if you tried Sensia 100

or K64. I don't use the Kodak E film for this reason.

[jay_.]

When the Leicaflex I came out in 1965 it was technologically outdated

before it hit the street. Not only was it behind Nikon,Canon,Minolta

and Pentax, but also behind Topcon (who was actually #2 behind

Nikon), Mamiya-Sekor, Petri, and Miranda, yet it survived the demise

of all four, and survives until now, 35 years later, *still*

technologically about a decade behind the rest. If there is nothing

more than image holding them in the race, then the entire business

world owes Leica a standing ovation.

[Robin Smith]

Well, in my opinion "technologically behind" in camera bodies means

little - most of what the many other cameras offer is of little use in

photography to anyone who knows anything about it. For those who don't

it can help them get shots, but we are not really talking about those

people are we on this site? Also although the original Leicaflex was

"behind" those afformentioned cameras because it did not have TTL

metering, at least it did not require a large accessory photomic head

to accomplish any kind of metering. Also, the later 1968 SL was

technologically ahead of the competition at the time by offering open

aperture metering which neither the Spotmatics nor Nikon F offered -

this is never mentioned. Also the Leicaflexes are just beautifully

constructed. I think it is a bit of a myth to go on about being the

Leicaflexes being out of date - a manual camera is never out of date

really, it does what it does and assumes the owner knows how to work

it. Much of camera progress assumes that owners need more and more

features and automation. This seems to be a fact of economics and

technology (particularly software), but most of us here know that this

is not really what we really need to get great images.

[bobtodrick]

I'd like to back up what Allan said earlier. Just as the M is a

camera requiring a different mindset than an SLR, the R

requires a different mindset than other SLR's. I like my R for the

same reason I like a mechanical watch over an electric, and why

I keep pouring money into my Alfa Romeo instead of opting for a

nice new gee-whiz car. The precision and smoothness of the

lenses and body just aren't reproduced elsewhere these days

(except maybe the F5). I don't need autofocus nor a gazillion

auto exposure modes, and the R fits my needs perfectly.

[duane_kucheran]

It's neither here nor there but I think that it's quite amazing for a

zoom to come out so well compared to Leica primes. It's obvious that

Canon has some pretty good optical engineers. It's too bad that the

mechanical aspects have slipped vis-a-vis the products of the 60's &

70's. The breechlock FL & FD lenses were very well built but I think

that only Leica builds anything like that today. BTW, we have a

Leica microscope at work and it appears to have succumbed to

polycarbonatism. Is anything else as well built as the stuff I

remember?

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

 

<p>

 

Duane

[bobtodrick]

Duane, unfortunately the 'cheap' feeling you're seeing with the

Canon and Nikkors comes part and parcel with the drive for

everfaster A/F. The only way to get the high speed people

demand with A/F is to make the parts light enough so everything

moves fast. It's one of the reasons that the Contax G is slower

than top class SLR A/F (though the G2 is a huge improvement).

The Ziess lenses for the Contax still have a lot of metal in them.

I for one will take the build quality of the Leica R lenses over A/F

anyday. Hopefully my eyes will hold up long enough that I never

have to change my mind.

[mark_c]

<i>Leica binoculars are excellent, much much better than Nikon

or Canon.</i><p>

Poppycock. Nikon Superior E porro prisms have long blown

away Leica, Zeiss and Swarovski roofs. And with the Venturer

line, they make the best roofs as well.

 

www.betterviewdesired.com

[bobtodrick]

Actually Mark, I'll take you to task on this one. No where on the

BVD site could I find 'real' test results, and in fact in a number of

places the author states (in the test of the Swarvoski's for

example), that in his OPINION the Nikon is better. Once your up in

the upper ranks of optics (whether it be cameras or binoculars),

opinion doesn't go very far.

[MTC Photography]

French photography magazine Chaseur d'Image tested eighty Nikon

lenses, and put them into a binder: Nikon Lens Test Dossier

<p> Among the 80 lenses, only 4 lenses rated five star, 36 of them

4 stars, the rest 3 star and 2 star.

<p> The percentage of 5 star in Nikon lenses is only 6.3%

<p> 5 star + 4 star is only 50%

 

 

<p>Leica has much higher percentage of 5 star and 4 star lenses

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Is it in the net Martin?; I have seen a page with the same test to

several Nikon lenses if noy most, there are some good ones but most

of them are found with diferences from one lens to another of the

same design, so before you buy one of this you better try it, so

there can´t be much wrote about a product that differs so; that´s a

good thing about Leica lenses, you can study them even before you put

your hands on one.

[MTC Photography]

Robert, Chassuer d'Image sells lens test reports dossiers, so they

don't put them on the net.

<p>

[MTC Photography]

I meant roberto

[MTC Photography]

<h3>Why 22x Loupe is great for check out lens </h3>

 

Popular Photography published hudreds of lens test report, each

test summarized in a suject quality chart-- listing the performance

of lens at different magnification from 4x to 22x from wide open

aperture to smallest aperture, the best picture quality is rated as

A+ with red square, followed by A, b+, B...the worst is F

<p> At 4x colum, almsot any lens is solid red, including zoom

lenses, in other words, at todays technology, almost any lens at any

fstop will produce A+ quality picture-- a Leica lens is as good as

a Takumar at 4x.

<p> As magnification increases, the number of red square decreases,

the first to gives are aperture at both ends, when it come to 22x

no lens, including Leica achieve solid red A+ from F1.4 to f16.

<p> For example, Canon EF 28mm/f2.8 lens at best can only get B+ grade

at 20x24 or 22x magnification.

<p> On the other hand, a Leica 35mm/1.4 got two A+ grade 20x24 and

two A grade 20x24" for a total of four A+/A grade pictures.

<p> At 22x, the quality of lens shows up clearly: Leica 35/1.4 is a

grade A lens, capable of producing top A+/A grade 20x24, Canon EF

28/2.8 is a grade B lens produces lnly B+/B grade 20x24 .

<p> That is what 20x loupe is all about

<p> The talk about "if you need microscope to see picture quality" is

pure nonsense.

[MTC Photography]

I dont have the magazine at hand. Popular Photography test fifty

standard 50mm/1.4 lenses, from Leica to Canon, Nikon.

<p> PoP called the test "The Great 50mm Shootout "

<p> If I remeber correctly, the winner was Carl ZEiss Planar 50mm/1.4

followed by Leica 50mm/1.4. Both Zeiss and Leica lenses can produce

grade A+/A grade 20x24 (22x) enlargements at the optimum apertures

(from f4 to f11).

<p> I don't think Nikkor 50/1.4 has any A+ grade 20x24, it is at or

near the bottom.

[MTC Photography]

Leica R and M has many top rated lenses, capable of delivering A+/A

quality 20x24" enlargement. There is no need to use MF.

<p> But not all brands of 35mm lens can perform that well at such

size, for them, if they want A+ 20x24, they have no option but MF

[tapas_maiti4]

Hi

 

<p>

 

"Leica R and M has many top rated lenses, capable of delivering A+/A

quality 20x24" enlargement. There is no need to use MF. " mmm? - so

all the top studio/landscape photographers carry all that heavy

equipment and the inconvenience of roll film for nothing.

 

<p>

 

Comparing medium format & 35mm is total poppycock if your comparisons

are grain size, sharpness and tonality.

 

<p>

 

I have used a hasselblad system for years and recently purchased a

leica m and konica RF. For fast work at an event or on the street,

I'd agree that the rangefinders produce better results because they

are smaller, lighter, easier to handle and have greater depth of

field but for this kind of photography the technical quality of the

photography is not the key issue.

 

<p>

 

There are also photographs whose content is so great that they should

be blown up to to 16x20 or whatever BUT even at 10x8 I can see better

technical results with medium format at 16x20 it is a quantum leap

apart.

 

<p>

 

With all high end 35mm you are talking about slight difference,

medium format (esp 6x7) will blow it apart but takes a lot more

effort to get right.

 

<p>

 

I am not trying to denigrate Leica - I think that the small amount of

gear I have is fantastic and the quality for 35mm is amazing but it

ain't medium format and it ain't large format and will NEVER beat

them on their turf.

 

<p>

 

Tapas

[MTC Photography]

The days of MF is numbered

<p> A new superfilm on the block capable of 1000x enlargement may

make MF obsolete.

<a

href="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/example.htm">Gigabitfilm<

/a>

<p> My MInox may even beat MF :)

[MTC Photography]

<a

href="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/thousandfold_linear.htm">

What is Gigabitfilm </a>

<p> Leica plus Gigabitfilm beats MF

<P> A Minox loaded with Gigabitfilm may beat MF too

[MTC Photography]

<a

href="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/what_is_gigabitfilm.htm">

Gigabitfilm</a>

[marc_bergman]

"PoP called the test "The Great 50mm Shootout "

 

<p>

 

If I remeber correctly, the winner was Carl ZEiss Planar 50mm/1.4

followed by Leica 50mm/1.4. Both Zeiss and

Leica lenses can produce grade A+/A grade 20x24 (22x) enlargements

at the optimum apertures (from f4 to f11).

 

<p>

 

I don't think Nikkor 50/1.4 has any A+ grade 20x24, it is at or

near the bottom.

 

<p>

 

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), June 27, 2000"

 

<p>

 

From Pop Photography Feb. 1999.

 

<p>

 

"By a small margin, the 50mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar delivered the

best overall image quality... It edges out both the 50mm f/1.4 Canon

EF and the 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-R."

 

<p>

 

If you look at their test results the Zeiss gets 3 grades of A+ for

20x24 enlargements and 2 A grades. The Canon get 1 A+ grade and 3 A

grades. The Leica gets 4 A grades. The Minolta gets 2 A+ grades and

2 A grades. The Nikon also gets 2 A+ grades for 20x24 enlargements

and 2 A grades.

[jia_shi_li]

The Canon f2.8 L 28-70mm is a very good lens, period!

[MTC Photography]

Caon EF 28-70/2.8L indeed is an excellent lens

<p> It is best at 50mm focal length, at f8 it can produce on A+ grade

20x24" and one A grade 20x24".

<p> At 70mm range, it can produce 3 A grade 20x24"

<p> At 28mm wide angle, it is slightly soft, 3 A grade 16x20.

[nesrani]

What is all this A grade A+- a little bit more a little bit less

nonsense?

 

<p>

 

They're all good - as good as the snapper at least.

[tapas_maiti4]

Rob

 

<p>

 

Superb answer - I've never heard anyone reject pictures because they

weren't Leica,Canon,Nikon etc. I guess no sane person hangs 20x24

pictures of lens test charts on their wall.

 

<p>

 

Tapas

[MTC Photography]

Pop SQF is based on MTF AND correlate with actual 20x24" enlargement

of real picture then rated by a panel of photographers, so "hanging

20x24" test chart on wall" is nonsense and ignorant