Lenses, lenses, lenses

[stephen_jones4]

It really amazes me (on an ongoing basis!) that posters seem to

say they notice no difference between german and japanese

glass in terms of colour rendition and tonality. 3 nights ago I was

at a leica-user friend's house and slipped in a slide taken on a

canon 100 macro lens amongst my usual leica stuff. We both

laughed at how poor the imagery was. As he put it "I don't

remember your daughter having that pink rash" and "I don't

remember your other daughter looking that colour". And no, this

wasn't an exposure/filter/funny light thing: it's always like this. Are

those who see no difference between japanese and german

lenses being genuine? If so why bother with all the hassle - just

for the improved touchy-feely? I know I wouldn't worry to spend

£1600 on a 35mm camera body unless I was absolutely certain

that my pictures (all else being equal!) were going to be more

faithful/beautiful as a result. People who claim that mamiya

lenses are equally good (for the mamiya7) really surprise me. If I

thought that for one moment (and I've made it my business to

obsess about these things) then I'd rush out and get three (after

all they're quite a bit cheaper and the neg's are enormous in

comparison). For me, it's a bit like hi-fi - I'm not going to bother

hooking my discman up to quad electrostatic speakers. Go on

then guys, tell me that I'm wrong... but then tell me why you go

with leica at all...

[jay_.]

I use the Leica M system because it is very compact but affords me

lens interchangeability and fast enough lenses so I don't need to use

400-800 speed film to hand-hold. I use the Leica R system because

the lenses perform well at the wider apertures, once again allowing

me higher shutter speeds to avoid camera shake and to stop subject

motion on slower film. I use Nikon AF for wildlife photography

because for my lens choice (300/2.8) the Leica optics hold no

technically-demonstrable (i.e. MTF tests)performance advantage for

their obscene cost, and the Nikon bodies have built-in motor drives

that take AA batteries. I use Hasselblad for landscape photography

because no 35mm format including Leica can compete with the image

detail. I agree that there are differences between the color

renditions of different lens manufacturers (not limited to German vs

Japanese, either). In fact many times I prefer to use an 81A or B on

my Leica lenses because I find them a tad too cool. I have never

shot with any Canon lens so I can't comment on the "pink rash" with

the 100 Macro. I have always used as my reality-check the fact that

90% of 35mm users in the world don't use Leica, including most of the

high-paid, well-known, published artists...who obviously know of

Leica, could afford it, and one has to assume would switch instantly

if it gave them a career advantage. To take the attitude that the

superiority of Leica optics is plain as day would be tantamount to

putting myself above all those successful professionals.

[greg_mason]

As with many things there is a law of diminishing return and an

attention to detail that does not exist on lessor objects. This is

not limited solely to cameras, but also to clothes, cars, wine,

stereo speakers and many other items. unfortunately i have expensive

taste in cameras (leica) and speakers (martin logan). i do not buy

expensive suits because the difference is lost on me and since i can

not fully appreciate the additional attention to detail i do not

choose to spend my money on it. i do not however begrudge those that

do spend there money expensive clothes, because perhaps they can see

the difference where i can not , just like i can feel the difference

between leicas and other cameras. if i really wanted to save money i

would learn to be satisfied with wine that comes in a screw top jug

and not some of the stuff that prefer.

[john_chan2]

My philosophy is to choose one tool and learn it inside out. If the

goal is to take pictures which are compelling/ captivating then its

best achieved if the photographer evolves with his tools. That's not

to say a photographer can't endeavor to try thing out that won't work

out. I tried the Hassy system out... sold everything after I got

into the M system. Reason? Hassy not me, M is the way I see. Life

is about risk. However, to suggest that one photographic tool is

superior to another bordering on hubris. The photographer uses the

tool... not the other way around.

 

<p>

 

I may not be at "the stage" that I want to be at in my evolution as a

photographer but I certianly don't feel any strong need to justify my

choice of tools. I'm sure more accomplished photographers like David

Alan Harvey don't have to justify what they use at all.

 

<p>

 

The images are all that matter.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

I have had not many oportunities to check on other brand lenses; and

my main work is in B&W, but the most important thing that stickes me

to the M system is it´s finder and compactness and of course quality

of image, but have not enough experience with japanese lenses to make

a comparison. Lucky me!

 

<p>

 

But let´s be fair, the 20/2.0 Canon FD is for me a good lens for B&W

at least, as well as 24/2.8 and an old 35/2 from Nikon

[peter_hughes1]

I choose Leica R and Hassy for my personal work, partially because of

the German optics, partially because of the feel, partially because

of the ergonomics, partially because of the logo. For my commercial

work it really doesn't matter what I use; no one will see the

difference anyway.<p>Hooking up a Discman to a pair of Quads wouldn't

be so bad, if you had a suitable amp in between them. From what I

know, the difference in high-end CD players is mostly in the analog

sections.

[marc_bergman1]

Hmm,

 

<p>

 

I used to have a Canon EF 100mm macro lens. Very neutral colors.

Extremely high sharpness. Excellent contrast and bokeh to die for.

 

<p>

 

I found Canon fixed focus lenses to be very consistant in these

qualities. Some manufacturers are not so consistant.

 

<p>

 

I like the Leica M series for its superior wide angle lenses and the

better low light focusing ability of rangefinders in general.

 

<p>

 

It is possible to like Leica equipment and still respect and use

other companies products.

[albert_smith]

If all that is required in the competitive world of photography, to

excel over most of the other participants, is to buy a specific

brand, then that would be a defacto requirement. You wouldn't see

anything but Leicas, and anyone caught with a (gasp!) Nikon or (ha!)

Canon, would be laughed out of the profession.

 

<p>

 

In the real world though, somehow more people are earning money with

these "inferior" brands.

 

<p>

 

I love the work of David Allen Harvey, but I would bet more people

(photographers and non-shooters alike) could close their eyes and

remember the head shot of that Afghan girl shot by McCurry with a

lowly Nikon and 105mm lens, than any single Harvey image. If any

glass that is not Leica is crap, then are we being tricked by those

shooters producing great work without it?

 

<p>

 

Or wait... could it be that the "tools" do nothing on their own?

 

<p>

 

For me, I use Leicas only because of the rangefinder cameras. There

was nowhere else to go for that type of camera. My SLRs are all

Nikons, used with prime manual focus Nikkors. My only though on

which one I use is which camera type is more appropriate for the

subject. I've been stunned by both sets of glass... when a photo

works, it just works.

[stephen_jones4]

I think that the argument that since lots of pros use nikon and

canon they must be good is absurd: for a start, lots of people

who earn money from photography are very poor photographers

with little or no feel/interest in photography: I've been to enough

weddings to know that. In any case, for news/sports work

delicate nuances of tone are really not important - the fella who

gets the shot, wins. If people really just want a compact and

discreet camera what about the konica hexar (original) - you

could get four or five for the price of an m6+35asph.

Marc- one of us is wrong, that's for sure. If you really used that

canon lens on the same transparency film as your leica pictures

and still thought they were comparable well..sheesh I don't know

what to say.

What drives me up the wall, is that if only I could get hold of you

guys' eyes I could save myself a fortune as well as a deal of

hassle. Perhaps it's all in my mind (and my wife's - she wouldn't

let me take a picture of her with a nikon lens!) although, as I've

said before, it's funny that every time I go "wow" to a picture in the

National Geographic I later discover that it was taken on a leica

(M or R). In any case all you people who don't see much/any

difference - go do yourself a favour and get a nikon - those

cameras are so reliable and affordable and the flash system is

awesome (you can always get a hexar for candids) - what's

stopping you? I can't help feeling that if a person sticks with a

system because they're nicely built (does not equate to

reliability!!) this is a fairly dodgy reason: after all, photography is

really about images, not toys, otherwise we should all be

collecting metal model trains (probably a better investment, may

even be more fun...)

[Spearhead]

<i> As he put it "I don't remember your daughter having that pink

rash" and "I don't remember your other daughter looking that

colour"</i><p>

 

Sounds like there is a processing problem. Even most point and

shoots won't change color to that degree.<p>

 

Go do a scientific test, because that quote is proof that something

serious is wrong, not a difference between lens brands.<p>

 

I show my photos and sell them, and the one that always makes a

difference is format. I had a stock agency pick from digital files

and they were all medium format, despite being moderately low

resolution. But that was it. No distinction between different 35mm

systems. (The medium format images were taken with German and

Japanese and lensless equipment.)

[stephen_jones4]

forgot to say

 

<p>

 

Al - re: the afghan girl. I agree this is a great shot with lovely

colours - particularly those limpid eyes- But... Steve McCurry is a

fine photographer who only photographs at particular times of

the day, usually after or during bad weather, to get the colour

richness that he does get. In other words, he is going out of his

way to do everything right, and the upshot is that he gets some

wonderful shots and probably would whatever cameras he

used.(btw, I used to be a nikon junkie and it was felt by just about

everybody that the 105 2.5 was the best portrait lens that nikon

has ever made - nothing lowly about this choice then, despite it's

affordable price) Now, to be frank I do not have sufficient

confidence in my ability - I want to maximise my chances/ give

myself the best possible odds and I really do believe that this is

done ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL by using leica glass.

As for the comparison with dah, I think it's a very interesting one.

In general, I think dah actually relies on the beautiful tonality of

his lenses - how they deal with light etc - a little too much and

McCurry seems to work harder compositionally. For all that, if the

question was which pictures were more beautiful - in terms of

tones alone- the answer would be DAH's: just compare his cuba

book with mccurry's south south east to see what I mean. Finally,

and however much of a w***er it makes me, I look through his

"portraits" book and often, really often, regret that he hadn't used

a leica/zeiss lens. If this makes people guffaw well so be it: I can

only tell the truth as I see it: if other people see nothing different -

fine - but I assure you I'm not lying to be a leica snob or any other

kind of snob - on the contrary, I go to bed each night hoping I can

find a cheaper system with lenses I like (and believe me, I've

tried them all...)

[stephen_jones4]

Jeff-

I'm going to do that test, asap and hopefully before I go totally

mad.

[hil]

I use Leica M6 because I want the best possible quality in my

snapshots AND:

-I prefer 35mm format, AND

-I like a compact kit that doesn't need a camera bag. Maximum set-up

is 90mm in left pocket, 35mm in right pocket, body w/50 around neck,

extra film in shirt pocket, flash in back pocket (and I simplify from

there), AND

-I hate tripods and only use them when I must (last time was 30 years

ago with a 4x5) AND

-Leica is easy to focus for my increasingly presbiopic eyes,

especially in low light, AND

-I like to set my own aperture, pick my own shutter speed, and I like

auto (as in self) not auto (as in automatic) focus, AND

-I love the worksmanship, craftsmanship, ruggedness, and beauty of

the camera, AND

-Did I mention the lenses?

[jackflesher]

In LF circles, dealing with color differences between brands or even

color differences in different length lenses from the same

manufacturer, is (was) a way of life. We bought a lot of colored

gels... It has only been fairly recently, like the last ten years,

that LF lens manufacturers have paid attention to this detail. Nikon

was the first to correct their LF lenses to the same color, followed

by Fuji, and finally by Rodenstock and Schneider. FWIW, Rodenstock's

were often favored 20 years ago because they were at least reasonably

consistent in their color cast. It was common to see a piece of tape

on the lens-cap denoting the appropriate CC factors to apply to a

specific lens so a photographer could balance to their own standard.

It is a habit still practiced by many who use older LF lenses. Even

today, if you use brand-new LF lenses of different manufacture, you

end up balancing them with gells to some individual color-standard of

preference.

[reinier_de_vlaam]

Actually I can compare lensen because I just recently bought

a Leica R4s and compared the Summicron 50/2 with the Minolta

50/1.4 MD (on a x-700) at the same apertures with a B&W testsheet.

In itself the minolta MD 50/1.4 is considered a very good lens

and I have been using it with great satisfaction sofar.

Well, up to now. If I compare the prints (that were small

about 10x15cm) there is not a single line really straight on

the Minolta, while the Summicron are so straigth I can put a

ruler next to the line an don't see a diversion from a straight

line. For the minolta it is clearly visible, even with small

appertures.

So considering these lenses both originate in the 70/80's

the comparison is valid. If the progress in lenses continues

on both sides with equal speed, there will still be a clear

difference, even with modern lenses.

 

<p>

 

But to use Leica's own words: "It's all right if you want

to spend your life shooting test-images, but the main point

is 'are you satisfied with your real-life pictures'"

 

<p>

 

Reinier

[terry_dvorak]

I think the basic premise of this thread is really funny, and I'm

glad to see that none of the respondents have agreed with the initial

premise. There are lots of great reasons to shoot Leica, but the

notion that compared to Leica, "Japanese primes make it look like

portrait subjects have a skin rash" is laughable. As others above

have said better than I can, if the color differences were as

dramatic as claimed in the initial post, no professional with a

decent pair of eyes would shoot anything but Leica. That many or most

pros (including portraitists) don't go exclusively with "German

glass" suggests that reasonable people may differ on this subject.

Egads.

 

<p>

 

.......

[stephen_jones4]

Terry - thank you for your very rude reply - it certainly has helped

me and made me realise that in fact I am not only lying but also

an idiot. What would I do without such considered comments (no

doubt backed by plenty of objective testing)? I really try to help

those who post questions on this usenet and give of my best

(however poor that may be). On the other hand, I can see a far

better way forward would be to mock the questioner - that way we

can all move defensively forward.

[bobtodrick]

Must agree with most. After 25 years of shooting (a great majority of

it as a living) with Nikon, Olympus and Leica, the original premise

here is just not true. Though in a side by side comparison (I once

did a faily extensive test between Olympus and M glass) there were

SUBTLE differences, mostly in the area of contrast (there seemed

better shadow detail with the M glass). Though there were slight

differences in color rendition, it was in no way exaggerated or

objectionable. In fact when I've shown the results to other

photographers I get as much personal preference for the Olympus shots

as the M. The only reason I switched entirely at the time to the M

was its low light capabilities..

[emile_de_leon9]

I like my nikon lenses better stopped down and the leica ones wide

open or close to it....as a generalisation.

[matthew_pulzer1]

I have to say I think Steve is right. I cannot understand why anyone

would buy into Leica M simply to have a compact/low

light/rangefinder... If that's the reasoning then there's nothing

wrong with Hexars or Voigtlanders. No, the only reason that its worth

spending two to three times as much as the competition is the quality

of the image. If you want the best wide open quality, finest bokeh

and subtlest tonal graduation then there is only one system to go

for. I'm sure other brands produce some fine lenses and consequently

good images, but IMHO they simply are not as good as those from Leica.

 

<p>

 

The Afghan girl is truly a startling image. It would probably have

been even better if taken with a 75 or 80 'lux. I'm not knocking the

set up used or the image that was produced, just putting forward the

proposition that it is possible that it could be improved. Sticking

with the hi-fi analogy, classical record companies regualarly issue

operas recorded in the 60s or even the 50s. Why? simply because the

performances are magnificent. Do the recording deficiencies jar? Of

course, but that doesn't stop the beauty of the performance shining

through. However, they would sound even better with modern recording

technology, digital or analogue (let's not get bogged down in that

one!). I think it's the same with many respected and admired

photographs, such as the Afghan girl. Use the best lenses and other

things being equal then you will end up with best image quality.

[marc_bergman1]

While I don't obsess on these thing my lightbox has a CRI of 98. I

also use Rodenstock loupes.

 

<p>

 

Why not post a scan of the offending slides? Color me curious.

[jackflesher]

Steve:

 

<p>

 

I think I need to more specific here...

 

<p>

 

I have noticed the "pink" skin you are referring to. And I've seen it

with Japanese glass, not German.

[raymond_tai]

I don't think it is so much Germany v. Japanese but really brand

v. brand. Made in Germany, Canada, Japan Leica lenses are in

general superior to made in Germany or Japan Contax lenses.

Cosina/Voigtlander lenses are better than Konica RF lenses but

not as good as Contax G2 and especially Fuji/Hasselblad Xpan

lenses. Whew! That is as much apples v. oranges I can do in

one day.

[tom_bryant]

The old rule of thumb use to be "any color shift is OK, as long as

it's warm(red)". Bovine excreta.

 

<p>

 

In my interrum leica days, I dumped an 35mm f/2 Canon FD lens for this

sin. Any noticeable color shift is bad.

 

<p>

 

Leica glass does not have this problem. That said, my *sharpest*,

most contrasty lens is a Vivitar(!), yes Vivitar. The old cheapo 3rd

part lens manufacturer. A 90mm f/2.5 Series 1 macro. In Canon FD

mount. In fact, it's the only reason I even bother to keep my Canons

around, as the Leicaflex is a wonderful system, and the 100mm f/2.8

Elmarit R macro is reputed to be perhaps the world's sharpest lens.

But there's a special quality to that Vivitar! The Canon lenses

themselves are very nice (the 50 f/1.4 is a wonderful lens, as is the

200mm f/4) but they aren't better than their Leica counterparts.

 

<p>

 

But there's more to lenses than sharpness. Portability and ease of

use are also important considerations. I take many more 90mm shots

with my 90mm old style Summicron (long focus version) than the

Vivitar. It balances wonderfully on my M3, and that 2/3 stop faster

speed makes for a 2/3 faster shutter speed, which, hand held (that's

why we're using 35mm cameras, isn't it?) is just that much sharper.

I also get to see what's outside the frame (try *that* win an SLR!)

 

<p>

 

IMHO, the reason you go with Leica M is that it does what it does, in

it's limited way, better than any other system does anything else.

Within those limitations are about 95% of the pictures you'd ever want

to take.

 

<p>

 

For a more detailed rant, see

<A HREF=208.218.135.74/photography/photo35.html> my site.</A>

[tom_bryant]

That web site doesn't seem to work. Somehow Phillip's site prefixed

itself to the HREF! Here it is, in plain, unHTMLized english:

 

<p>

 

208.218.135.74/photography/photo35.html

 

<p>

 

Also, win should be with, in the 2nd to last paragraph.