Leica lenses vs others

[ray_cutting]

<p>here are a couple crops</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>next is summicron</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>The aperature on the summarit is perfect, just CLA'ed by Gus Lazzari, as was the M3 i used, the Jupiter, and the iiif that is pictured here.<br>

If any one needs a excellent camera/lens repair guy, email Gus at <a href="mailto:thegreatgus@gmail.com">thegreatgus@gmail.com</a><br>

He has CLA'd and repaired all my rangefinders (seven now), and 2 lenses.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>now the summarit crop</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>now the rigid</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>now the elmar</p><div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>One thing i noticed, is the coatings make a big difference on the color, as opposed to the uncoated elmar which is quite dull in comparison (but closer to reality)</p>

[Troll]

<p>I believe that it's called "reinventing the wheel."</p>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<blockquote>

<p>But when i studied the full size image at 100% on my computer, i could not see any differences in sharpness from one to the other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...and the in focus point is central to the frame. Just test (dont post) some shots wide open with "supposedly" in focus objects towards the corners. That is where your wheels will start to fall off !!! There are also too many other variables you choose not to control to really call this a test.<br>

Modern Leica lens are superb and can be clearly shown to hold a significant advantage over almost any other manufacturers products, especially at the wide end. The newer Zeiss offerings are probably the only close contenders.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>I know they are superb and superior lenses, thats why i buy them, but for those you can only afford a $70 lens like the Jupiter i used, i think they will be more than happy with the results.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Craig<br>

Your photo's on flickr are very impressive, nice work!</p>

[oleg_novikov]

<p>

<p>You might also be interested in a comparison of AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D, Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF and Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28—have a look <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/nikkor_zeiss_leica_28mm/nikkor_zeiss_leica_28mm.shtml">here</a>. Leica lenses <em>are</em> superb.</p>

</p>

[sitemistic]

<p>Whether or not Leica lenses are "better" than, say, a Nikkor lens, in an absolute sense, the reality is that in a practical sense it many times makes no difference. Most of us shoot small cameras handheld with subjects that won't stay still. We either print 8x10 or smaller prints, or show our work on the web. What the corner of an image looks like cropped from an image that would print 30 inches across really is not important to what most of us do with cameras.<br>

Leica lenses are superb lenses. I've paid silly prices for them, just as I've paid silly prices for my Canon L lenses. But, in a practical sense, all of this resolution and sharpness is many times just thrown away in the way we actually use photos. YMMV, of course.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Jim<br>

I totally agree, i think we all own Leica cameras and lenses for many more reasons than just great quality images, me personally, i love the metal contruction of the cameras and lenses, the precision and quality of materials used.<br>

I can take a great picture faster with my Nikon D3 or D300 or even a D40, but i have so much more fun using one of my old M3's or iiif's, even though i have to use a light meter and select aperature and speed, well to me that is the fun part.<br>

Also i love i can take as good a picture with a 50 year old camera as one made today,<br>

I am totally hooked on the Leica system, and have gotten completely carried away on my purchasing, but will never regret the money spent and my wife will never know what ive really spent!</p>

[pensacolaphoto]

<p>I would have used an easier focus point than a camera since it is unclear where exactly didy ou aim to focus. Having a light source in the background also helps with checking flare and showing bokeh better. The Summicron 50mm lens is known for being a high resolution lens. I have the rigid Summicron.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comparisons.</p>

<p> </p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Oleg<br>

You have a very interesting web site, which i will be following from now on, i do have a question for you.<br>

Your comparison really showed wear Leica shines!<br>

How was the Leica lens converted to be used on the d700, since i started buying these Leica lenses i wanted to try them with my D3, and after a little research, i found some adaper rings for a Leica screw lens to fit on nikon f mount, but read on the web, due to distance from the sensor, we would not be able to focus to infinity, and only really be able to focus on close objects.<br>

Please explain how i might be able to use my screw or m mount lenses on my Nikon.<br>

I love your China pictures, China is one of my most desired places to go to do photography.<br>

I may have opportunity to go to Yuyao City, Ningbo, China, it would be work related but i would use it as a opportunity at take some great pics.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Raid<br>

I focused on the rim of the lens on the camera, where a filter would attach.<br>

After i had the film processed i also seen where i could have show Bokeh better with having more lights and shiny objects in the back ground, also if i were to do it again i would have more things in the focus plane so we could see objects on edges of frame in focus.<br>

I would also use a finer grain film, so i could get some high resolution crops to share.<br>

And of course use a tripod to maintain accurate position.<br>

I was basically just playing around, killing time and having fun switching out lenses and playing with my toys.</p>

<p> </p>

[david j.lee]

<p>is that a can of kraft parmesan cheese? you should buy the real stuff...</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>After buying all my Leica equipment, i can't afford the real stuff.</p>

[david j.lee]

<p>just kidding ray. i have that summarit. it,s gourgeous, looks like a million dollars but i have to admit that i have never used, well maybe once or twice. in your pictures and in my computer it looks a little colder compared with the jupiter.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Yes, i agree, and also on the prints i had printed, must be the coatings, because the uncoated Elmar is also quite cold.<br>

Maybe someone could shed some light on this warmth difference between the lenses.<br>

And yes it is a quite beautiful lens, i also love the Jupiter, it is also very nice looking lens, lot's of glass to look at.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>Aside from the difference in color balance, and maybe bdokeh, I can't come to any conclusion from this. The only way to tell is to examine the negatives themselves. Once you start introducing other variables into the mix, all bets are off. Scanned for the web? Can't tell a thing.</p>

[starvy]

<p>it does seem that wide open they are not that good?</p>

[nrb]

<p>The Jupiter is a german Carl Zeiss pre-war design. Your results could even look better if you did choose a black and white film.</p>

[unlearny]

<p>I would like to see a B&W version, focused on something at the closest range, off-center with a single light source, and fix me a tuna salad sandwich while you're at it, I'm starving.<br>

Was the Jupiter made by Kiev or Fed? The Early Kievs cameras were made from confiscated equipment and staff from Zeiss, I wonder how old Kiev lenses stack up to newer ones? <br>

I hear a lot about Fed, did they confiscate Leica machinery, too? </p>