Which is more economical?

[john_kwok]

<p>Bryan,<br>

May I suggest as a possible kit then, a Leica M6, 50mm Planar, 25mm Biogon, and either a 35mm Biogon or a 35mm f1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. I'd recommend getting the Leica equipment used, but you should be able to pick up the Zeiss lenses at reasonable prices in Japan, if not in your home town. Again, don't confine yourself into thinking that a Leica M rangefinder camera should be mounted only with Leica lenses, especially when there are excellent alternatives from Zeiss, Konica (recently discontinued Hexanon-M lenses) and Voigtlander.</p>

 

[david_yang2]

<p>If you are shooting film, there is really no reason to buy a Leica camera if you are not shooting Leica lenses. Voit makes an excellent 21mm f/4 that works wonderfully on the M-mount Leica, and Zeiss makes a terrific 18mm for the M mount. But these lenses terribly on the M9 because of the distance between the nodal points and the CCD (see a very informative article on using third-party lenses with the M9: <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cosina.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cosina.htm</a>). And you also don't get the benefit of the M9 firmware that compensates and optimizes for each of the Leica lenses when used with a digital body.<br /><br />I disagree, quite strongly, that if you were to go with the M9 you can use the cron 50mm instead of the lux 50mm because you can tweak the ISO. I have the Noc 50mm f/0.95, the Lux 50mm ASPH, as well as the cron 50mm. When I shoot the Noc I shoot only at f/0.95, not because I can use a slower shutter speed, but for the signature 3D rendering of the lens that no other lens can really compare. Similarly, if I am shooting the Lux 50mm ASPH, I shoot it on f/1.4 95% of the time to get the benefit of the wonderful bokeh that lens offers at f/1.4 at 1/2 weight of the Noc. If I am out to shoot landscape, I choose the cron 50mm because that lens has the least amount of distortion stopped down (say f/8.0) and is much lighter to carry around. Each of these lens offers something unique, and as Leica lense they hold their values well; my choices for these lenses have nothing to do with ISO.<br /><br />If you are going to shoot film, the Minolta CLE is compatible with every M-mount lenses out there and there is very few things the M cameras do better; the CLE can be had for $400. Or, if you want something new, the Zeiss Ikon is still being made and can be bought new for about USD $1,700. These two choices are hands down the best "economical" choices amoungst all your considerations as far as the M-mount film is concerned. If you must have a brand new Leica because you like the look and feel, and are willing to spend thousands of dollars extra for that look and feel, then why stick non-matching third-party lenses on the Leica bodies?<br>

My ultimate recommendation is to buy just one lens -- the 50mm cron, and then go from there; when it comes to photography and taking a good photo, good camera equipment is a luxury not a determining factor.</p>

[nomad_.]

<p>What do you mean by "non-matching"? They fit and focus, don't they?</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>Nomad, like I said, if Bryan wants to pay for a brand new MP for the look and feel, then it would be consistent with that mentality to get matching look and feel Leica lenses to go with the MP. A Zeiss or a Voit on a MP, while make take just fine photos, does not match the look and feel of the Leica body. If the question were directed to the digital world, then no the third-party lenses will not always focus on the M9 due to the very restrictive nodal point construction of the M9 CCD (this is well documented).</p>

[andrew robertson]

Can I ask, how many dentists have contributed to this thread? A show of hands please.

[john_kwok]

<p>David Yang,<br>

Having worked with both Leica and Zeiss lenses for years, I find the Zeiss ZM lenses to be as good as their Leica equivalents - and in two instances, actually better (50mm Planar, 25mm Biogon) - offering superb image quality at prices far less than their Leica equivalents. While the Voigtlander 21mm f4 lens is good, apparently the Zeiss 21mm F4.5 Biogon-C (which is built in the same factory as the Voigtlander lenses BTW) is far better wide open and stopped down with regards to contrast and resolution. Have heard nothing but great things about that lens. Have also heard favorable results about the 18mm Distagon and the German-built 15mm Distagon and 85mm Sonnar (which, according to Erwin Puts, is a better performer wide open at close focusing distances than the 90mm f2 Summicron ASPH). I use Zeiss lenses on my Leica M camera bodies because I like the look they create in my pictures (Have posted links to some of them here, which you should peruse if you haven't already.). IMHO the two best rangefinder lens lines are Leica and Zeiss and users of Leica M-mount rangefinder cameras shouldn't think they should feel obligated to limit themselves only to lenses made by one manufacturer or the other.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David Yang,<br>

Having worked with both Leica and Zeiss lenses for years, I find the Zeiss ZM lenses to be as good as their Leica equivalents - and in two instances, actually better (50mm Planar, 25mm Biogon) - offering superb image quality at prices far less than their Leica equivalents. While the Voigtlander 21mm f4 lens is good, apparently the Zeiss 21mm F4.5 Biogon-C (which is built in the same factory as the Voigtlander lenses BTW) is far better wide open and stopped down with regards to contrast and resolution. Have heard nothing but great things about that lens. Have also heard favorable results about the 18mm Distagon and the German-built 15mm Distagon and 85mm Sonnar (which, according to Erwin Puts, is a better performer wide open at close focusing distances than the 90mm f2 Summicron ASPH). I use Zeiss lenses on my Leica M camera bodies because I like the look they create in my pictures (Have posted links to some of them here, which you should peruse if you haven't already.). IMHO the two best rangefinder lens lines are Leica and Zeiss and users of Leica M-mount rangefinder cameras shouldn't think they should feel obligated to limit themselves only to lenses made by one manufacturer or the other (Unofficially, have heard the same from some people I know who work for a certain well known German optics manufacturer that was located formerly in the city of Wetzlar.).</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>John Kwok,<br /><br />I don't disagree with anything you've said; there are great non-Leica lenses out there; I've owned many and have used them on my M6; my opinions are not based on what I've heard but my own personal experiences. As I've said, I don't think you even need to spend the money on a Leica M mount camera if you don't shoot the M9 -- as I suggested to Byran, the Zeiss Ikon is a wonderful camera. <br /><br />But if you are shooting digital, as I am on the M9, some of these lenses (admitted I haven't tried them all) will not work as well simply because of the M9 CCD construction; for instance the voit 21mm f/4.0 gives a weird red lateral fringe on the corners. I've owned both the Zeiss 18mm and the Leica 18mm, and personally cannot see any siginificant difference on film, but M9 firmware and 6-bit recognition technology allows me to capture meta data associated with the image when taken with the Leica 18mm (I like to know what lens I used to shoot what image in my workflow program). So to me the Zeiss 18mm was inferior if only on that point alone; is it cheaper? yes; is it worth the time for me to log all my shots rather than having them on my meta data? Not really. When you shoot every weekend and and are processing images regularlt, time becomes valuable and digital saves time. In that sense, the M9 is economical to me because I've had my days of sitting in a darkroom, wet mounting my negatives, scanning the images, and then processing them for the digital world if necessary; I am not a full-time photographer so it's not even feasible for me at this time.<br /><br />When I do want to shoot film, I don't really go to my M6 anymore (unless critical weather conditions demands a small body, as was the case when I was on a snowmobile in the arctic where electronic cameras will not function properly). Rather I shoot the Mamimay 7II or the Hasselblad 500c/m. The Mamiya 7II with 80mm combo (at f/8.0) is about as sharp and resolute as anything I have personally worked with.<br /><br />But I love my M9; it's light, easy to use, and fast (for image processing).<br /><br />As for contrast and resolution (and you know they typically balance against each other for a lens, you usually get one or the other), the Leica 24mm Elmar is so far the best I've seen; though I kinda wish they made something like it in the 21mm range.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br>

You can get the Zeiss ZM lenses coded independently to work properly with the M8 , M8.2 and M9 cameras. I tried my 35mm Biogon on a M9 at a photo trade show late last year and the color and contrast looked fine, especially from an uncoded lens. The new 24mm Elmar is a good lens in its own right, but judging from Erwin Puts's test results, it is marginally inferior to the 24mm Elmarit (and thus, also the 25 Biogon, which I regard as slightly better - just barely - than the 24mm Elmarit). As for any of the Leica 21mm lenses, none of them have the minimal distortion of the 21mm f4.5 Biogon-C lens, which is probably the best M-mount 21mm lens currently available.<br>

John</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>Hi John,<br /><br />I have a lot of respect for Erwin Puts and find his reviews interesting reads, but I cannot always replicate his results so I try to stick with my own experiences. Ido like Ken Rockwell tests which, though less controlled/precise than Put's methods, have more practical applicability to me personally. On the Elmar, my experiences have been that the Elmar edge performance is exellent so when I shoot city skylines, I choose the 24mm Elmar (along with the Cron 50mm). If I were to go to an Elmarit lens, I shoot the 28mm not the 24mm; it's a smaller lens, much ligher, and to me performs just as well without any need for an external finder (on a 0.72 for my M6 and the 0.66 for the M9). Personally I am not a huge fan of the 24mm focal length, but the price/resolution/weight of the 24mm Elmar is difficult to refuse.<br /><br />As for coding the Zeiss lenses yes I suppose you can always do that, but I would need to be convinced (for myself) that a particular sample/lens would indeed work well with the M9 before I go spend money to code that lens, and I don't have the time or desire to test out all thoses lenses when I know the Leica lenses would for sure work on the M9; the extent any Zeiss or Voit lenses can do what the Leica lenses cannot, chances are it won't make any difference in my photos. And, as soon as you code such a lens, you mess with the future value of that lens. Like I said in my previous posts, I have been doing very well "renting" Leica lenses for almost no money, by buying and holding used Leica lenses, and sell them sometime later if I don't use them (typically for more money than I purchased them for) or have the peace of mind that my Lex 50mm ASPH with 6-bit I bought used for $2,500 on eBay in 2008 is worth at leat $3,000 today (but I will never sell that lens). The Leica lenses hold their value better than most other third-party branded lenses.<br /><br />In any event, Ken and I happen to agree on this point for the M9 (but not the film bodies, which again I don't know whether buying a M mount makes sense at all, the Mamiya 7II is a much better film camera if nothing else given the film real estate of 6X7). His full article on the subject of Leica lense v. everyone else is here <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cosina.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cosina.htm</a>, and here is a quoted excerpt:<br /><br />**************** quote ***************<br>

<strong>Voigtländer Lenses on the M9</strong><br>

I can't repeat it enough: if you can afford to throw $7,000 at a digital camera body which will be worth little to nothing in five years due to <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-rot.htm">Digital Rot</a>, you certainly can afford to buy real Leica lenses for it, which will hold their value.<br>

If you buy second-rate lenses which were good enough for casual film use, you'll be missing half the performance of which your M9 is capable.<br>

Don't deny yourself the lenses that you and your M9 deserve.<br>

<strong>Older Ultrawide Lenses on the M9</strong><br>

Don't use the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/lens-reviews.htm#12">12mm</a>, <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/15mm-m.htm">15mm</a> or <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/21mm.htm">21mm Voigtländers</a> on the M9. Their rear nodal points are so close to the sensor that they give weird color shifts on opposite sides of the image. THere is no manual lens selection in the M9 to compensate for this.<br>

Avoid the <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/21mm-f4.htm">LEITZ 21mm f/4</a> (1958-1963) and 21mm f/3.4 (1963-1980) on the M9 for the same reason. Not only do the sides turn out in funny colors, but they won't meter, either.</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br>

<br /> I've traded friendly barbs via e-mail with Ken, and while I respect his enthusiasm, I prefer more the comments from the likes of Sean Reid - have only read those reviews he has for free - Karen Nakamura (www.photoethnography.com), and, of course Puts (though his I have taken with a large dose of salt whenever he seemed more like an external member of the Leica family than someone interested in making some thoughtful, well-supported comments on various cameras and lenses.). If you are referring to the current 28mm ASPH, apparently it isn't nearly as sharp and contrasty wide open as the lens it replaced or the Zeiss ZM 28mm Biogon. Anyway, I would recommend to anyone that they'd consider "biting the bullet" and try instead to get the 28mm Summicron lens, which, along with the 50mm Summilux ASPH and the 75mm Summicron ASPH, must be regarded as three of the best lenses which Leica currently manufactures.</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>Thanks Ken, I own both the Elmarit and the Cron 28mm lens (ASPH) and have tested them against each other. Wide open there may be some minor differences, but nothing that really makes a huge difference to me personally; the Cron 28mm also has a very strong star burst signature that sometimes, when I am shooting city lights, I don't really care for. Stopped down, the 28mm Elmarit ASPH is as every bit as sharp as the cron, and has less distortions than the cron especially at the edges. I've never tested the Zeiss so I'll defer to you on that one, but it does weigh 25% more than the Leica (as do most Zeiss lenses). When I am treking in the desert or anywhere where I need to carry my gear for a long time, weight adds up. If I am shooting during the day, there is no reason to take the Cron over the Elmarit. And, in any event I rarely shoot wide-angled lenses wide open (but at times the 2.0 on the Cron did come very handy, during dusk at a village with no street lights). Typically if I am trying to capture night scenes with a wider lens where there are moving subjects, I would opt for the Summilux 35mm ASPH instead (the lux 24mm, which I have tried, is just too heavy and the need for a finder makes it a very "slow" lens). Personally I prefer the 90mm Cron over the 75mm. I don't find the 75mm focal length particularly useful when I am carrying a 50mm; it doesn't really bring me much closer and I can always step forward. If I am carrying a second tele I prefer the 90mm APO ASPH, which is an awesome lens (so long as you are not shooting into bright lights).</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br>

Am basing my opinion of course on what I have seen from Erwin Puts's tests, but he judged the new 28mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH lens to be a "compromise" design that was slightly inferior to the last generation non-aspherical 28mm Elmarit (He compared the Zeiss 28mm Biogon to the non-aspherical Elmarit and declared it was the equal of that Elmarit. BTW, the 28mm Biogon should be listed a Biogon-C lens since it is nearly as compact as the 21mm Biogon-C and the 50mm Sonnar-C. Weight-wise, I think it weighs almost as much as the 28mm Elmarit-ASPH.). As for my other lenses, my 24mm f2.8 Elmarit ASPH is approximately one third heavier than the 25mm Biogon, so that, plus the superb images I have obtained from the Biogon, is why the 24mm Elmarit is now my least used M-mount lens. I have never used any of the 75mm lenses, so I can't comment directly on how good they are; however, it seems to be a consensus amongst critics and users that it is one of the best Leica M-mount lenses currently available. Finally I have a dirty little secret to tell about the 18mm Elmar vs. the 18mm Distagon; I noticed immediately upon looking at their respective MTF graphs, that the Zeiss Distagon has substantially less distortion than the Leica lens (It's an impressive achievement for a lens that is approximately half the price of its Leica equivalent.).</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>John, thanks for the info. As I've mentioned I've also owned both the Zeiss Distagon 18mm and the Leica Elmar 18mm; you can't always go with the MTF graphs (especially when they are done by different standards via different companies), they are not based on real-life images (distortion for landscape, which is where I use my 18mm the most, is irrelevant). If you go with the MTF the Summilux 21mm is an awful lens because the MTFs do not take into consideration non-linear focal plane, but that's exactly what you need when shooting a wide-angled lens on the street at night.<br /><br />In my tests on the M9 for both 18mm lenses, there wasn't anything the Zeiss did better than the Elmar. The Zeiss is of course cheaper so economically as a new purchase it does make sense; in the used market they don't hold up as well, however. The Zeiss also weighs a bit more, but I thought the biggest advantage that Zeiss offered was the ability to take 58mm filters, which the Leica lens cannot (not without an adopter in any event).<br /><br />Happy shooting!<br>

David</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br>

I traded e-mail barbs with Ken after seeing that very article he wrote about Cosina and Zeiss lenses. As much as I admire his enthusiasm, this article is, unfortunately, a superb example of breathtaking inanity I see from him all too often with regards to judging the quality of camera lenses. His reasoning is the same as those I have seen from some who questioned the mechanical build quality and optical performance of Japanese-made Zeiss lenses formerly manufactured at Kyocera's Tomioka plant for the late, lamented Contax SLR system. I own both German and Japanese-made Contax Zeiss lenses and can state unequivocally that these lenses are made to the same high standard which Zeiss expects, regardless of their country of manufacture. The same is true for the Zeiss ZM lenses, which are manufactured at the Cosina Voigtlander plant - with the sole exceptions being the 15mm Distagon and the 85mm Sonnar which are both made at the Oberkochen, Germany facility - which are made to much higher tolerances and are subjected to rigorous quality control checks by Zeiss personnel (This was also done for the Contax Zeiss lenses manufactured at the Tomioka plant.). Seriously how can you regard Ken's judgement as a credible one when there are others like Karen Nakamura, Sean Reid, and here, yours truly, who have expressed their immense delight with the build quality and optical performance of the Zeiss ZM lenses. At least Erwin Puts - whether you agree with him or not - backs his arguments via rigorous testing. I have yet to see anything comparable from Ken that would put him in the same league as Sean Reid and Erwin Puts.</p>

 

[david_yang2]

<p>John, it's photography, not a political debate, don't get so worked up :) But in any event if you read more carefully at everything I wrote, and at the reviews of the people you respect, you will notice that I have no problems with the Zeiss lenses for film cameras, in fact I recommend against a Leica M camera for film (again, for film, if you shoot medium format like the Mamiya 7II, the real estate of the film makes all this lens sharpness discussion on a 35mm format much less important). <br /><br />All of their review of the the Zeiss lenses you talked about are based on a comparison of shots made on film. However, as Ken pointed out, and as I have verified with certain of the lenses, the M9 changes the game for some of the non Leica lenses, MTF aside. I test the lenses for myself on the M9, and based on performance, weight, and the ability of the lens to hold value, have determined what I like to shoot for "real world" pictures; while you may feel comfortable recommending lenses like the cron 75mm ASPH which you've personally never shot with, I prefer making recommendations based on my own experience. <br /><br />I cited that particular article by Ken not for his technical comparison of the lenses (which he made none in that particular instance) but simply agreeing with him that if you are going to spend all that money on a digital camera, like the M9, why try to save money on lenses that may or may not work as well (again, on the M9) especially when the Leica lenses will out appreciate the Zeiss lenses in the long run anyway?<br>

:)</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br /><br />Seems to me that only Leica fanatics would argue that you buy Leica lenses for their appreciation value. If I understand Bryan correctly, he's interested only in creating images. That IMHO should be your primary consideration for buying into a rangefinder camera and lens system (or for that matter any kind of camera and lens, period). Have heard from friends who have used it that the 21mm f4.5 Biogon-C is as good a lens as their comparable medium format lenses, but again this is hearsay.<br /><br />I'm not interested in a political debate, but I think Ken is wrong in asserting that if you buy a Leica M9 camera then you must use only lenses from that camera's manufacturer. As for his absurd claim that Zeiss lenses made at the Cosina plant are "third party" lenses comparable in quality to 1970s third party lenses, that comparison holds up only in the case of the earliest Vivitar Series 1 lenses, which were optically superior to many of the original equipment manufacturer lenses made at that time. His worst review is that of the 50mm f1.4 Planar, which he erroneously claims is just a Contax Zeiss design (which BTW, Popular Photography had rated years ago in the early 2000s as the best SLR 50mm f1/4 lens in then current production.). Nor does he have any genuine understanding as to how the Zeiss/Yashica (later Kyocera) partnership really worked:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm</a><br /><br />Again, the bottom line is this. I would urge others to trust more reviews from Sean Reid, Shutterbug contributors Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz (<a href="http://www.rogerandfrances.com">http://www.rogerandfrances.com</a>), Karen Nakamura, and, of course, Erwin Puts, who have spent far more time testing and actually using various Zeiss and Leica lenses (Roger Hicks has written very favorable reviews of the new Zeiss lenses, including the SLR ones if I'm not mistaken.). I would also remind readers that lenses should be purchased if they meet the needs of a photographer for his or her own artistic vision, not because the lens in question might have a good appreciation value in the future.</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>It's been a pleasure exchanging thoughts with you John; the logic and reading comprehension is truly unique. So if I understand everything correctly:<br /><br />1) Bryan is interested only in camera/lenses that will made good images; he doesn’t care about value<br /><br />2) Based on hearsay, the Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 Biogon-C is as good as the medium format lenses<br /><br />3) Ken is wrong about the M9 + Leica lenses because he doesn't understand, in part, "third-party" lens makers' partnership with each other<br /><br />4) Everyone should trust the reviewers you mentioned on camera equipment.<br /><br />5) Only Leica fanatics would purchase Leica lenses for their appreciation in value.<br /><br />So let me address each one for my own amusement.<br /><br />1) Read the title of this thread again, and read what Bryan has actually wrote, I think you will find that value is a consideration of his.<br /><br />2) This one is very interesting, as it seems to me that you may not understand why people shoot medium format in the first place. There are not many medium format lenses out there that are comparable to the best of the 35mm rangefinder lenses out there. But that is not why I shoot medium (or large) format. I shoot medium format because the size of the negative makes it much less relevant the sharpness of resolution of a lens. For instance, on a Mamiya 7II, the negative size is 6X7, which is several times larger in surface than the 35mm film plane, which means your enlargement factor is several times smaller, which means the 35mm lens would need to be several times sharper in order to "beat" the medium counterpart. I've never used the Zeiss 21mm f/2.5 so I cannot compare (though it sounds like neither have you). I will say, however, that my Mamiya 7II with the 80mm lens or the 43mm lens hands beats the best of the lenses (that are arguably much better than the Mamiya lenses) that I have been able to mount on my M6. So, I am not sure what is the relevance of your statement here other than to show you don't really understand medium format photography. The 500 c/m with a 80mm CF (yes, Zeiss!) lens is also very difficult to beat on the 6X6.<br /><br />3) What I haven't heard is whether you own a M9 and whether you've tested all your Zeiss lenses with the M9? I own the M9 and I have tested all my lenses on the M9. And, after 7,000+ actuations on the M9, I can personally say that Ken is right about the certain of the Voit and Zeiss lenses on the nodal point issue. I am not really sure whether you truly understand the M9 FX nodal point issue here.<br /><br />4) Again, I've never disagreed with Erwin's reviews but you haven't disagreed with me that all his reviews are based on film. And, in the film world, you may have missed my saying this the last two times -- I have no issues with Zeiss or the like for film cameras and in fact I recommended them. In fact, in the film world, I don't recommend Leica at all for 35mm rangefinder (unless you want to shoot certain lenses that only Leica makes, like the Noc f/0.95 or the Lux 21mm ASPH). And again, my ultimate opinion are based on my own experiences which is what every reader should go by; the literature review is a starting point, not the end point.<br /><br />5) I never said that value is the only reason I buy Leica lenses, just as how I am sure when you've talked about the price advantrage of the Zeiss lenses but I assume you are not suggesting buying them only because they are cheaper, right? :) In this instance, unless there is a third-party lens that can do something the Leica lens cannot (again, I am not sure whether you've ever addressed that point based on your own experiences with the M9 other than the test shots you did with the 35mm Biogen at a trade show), not buying a Leica lens because they are expensive, while spending $7,000 on a M9 that has firmware specially dealing with Leica lenses, just doesn't make sense given the M9 is basically designed to work better with (at least some of) the Leica lenses. This is simply what Ken was saying, and I haven't ready anything from you that challenges this point. In any event, any good investor would buy items that appreciate in value over time, lens or otherwise.<br /><br />BTW I failed to mention this in the previous posts but your suggestion of coding Zeiss lenses for the M9 is also a bit curious since the M9 coding system recognizes only Leica lenses, so is the suggestion here to "lie" in the meta data that the Zeiss lens you have on the body is actually a Leica lens? Why? I am not sure what that accomlishes since the meta data would not be accurate, but more importantly, the M9 firmware would be misapplied (if you have it turned on). For instance, the Zeiss 18mm and the Leica 18mm have different vignette properties, if you apply the firmware you'd get a weird ring-like vignette signature . . .<br /><br />Go enjoy your day John, and take some more photos :)<br /><br />David</p><div></div>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br /><br />Erwin Puts's most recent tests have relied primarily on digital imaging, especially over the last few years when he has tested extensively the Leica M8, M8.2 and M9 digital cameras. And I stand behind what I have written, especially my observation that one should buy lenses to meet one's artistic (or other usage) objectives, not because of their potential resale value. Clearly if others were to follow your inane logic David, then I doubt Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses would be selling well and used by many rangefinder photographers.<br /><br />No, I don't like digital cameras and have no interest in using the M digital rangefinders. But there are independent vendors who do code non-coded Zeiss and Leica lenses, and these should work well with the digital rangefinder cameras including the M9.<br /><br />You presume I work only in 35mm. No, I do not, though virtually all of my photography lately has been in 35mm. Have worked with formats as large as 8X10 and I am well aware of their advantages. Optically, the best lenses in medium format are those made by Zeiss, Schneider, Mamiya and Pentax. Mamiya's rangefinder lenses are based on classic Zeiss designs BTW and I am well aware that those for the Mamiya 6 and 7 rangefinders are exceptional. As for Hasselblad, the 80mm Planar is a great lens, but both the 100mm Planar and the 120mm Makro Planar are optically better based on reports I have read elsewhere (I've recently taken the plunge and obtained a Hasselblad 500CM and a 50mm Distagon and 150mm Sonnar.).<br />Again while I commend Ken's enthusiasm, he has not subjected photographic equipment to the same kind of extensive tests done by Sean Reid and Erwin Puts, and, to a lesser extent, Roger Hicks, Frances Schultz and Karen Nakamura. IMHO these photographers are far more credible than Ken is.<br>

<br />Moreover, as someone who claims to work a lot with the Mamiya 7 rangefinder, surely you should have noticed that there is still high contrast and resolution from film than from your Leica digital rangefinder. Or, to quote from noted photographer Mary Ellen Mark - whose primary camera now is a Mamiya 7 - "Digital just doesn't cut it" (which she said to me when I bumped into her last April while photographing the Easter Parade here in New Yor City).</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br />Speaking of the Easter Parade, here are my images taken with a Leica M6 and 25mm Biogon using Kodak TMAX 400 film:<br>

<br /><a href="http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=55680&id=1045985586&l=7286cd7865">http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=55680&id=1045985586&l=7286cd7865</a><br>

<br />If the best work you can do is that image from Manhattan Beach Pier, then it's a compelling reason for Bryan why he shouldn't invest in the latest Leica lenses and a Leica M9 digital rangefinder camera IMHO.</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>The image I posted was of course a severly compressed image, the original of which has sold many copies. But, in any event, wow John all this time we are talking about lens comparison when the focus of discussion for you really should have been on composition, lighting, and the art of culling a portfolio . . . IMHO of course :)</p>

[john_kwok]

<p>David,<br>

Touche but I would still stand behind my choices. The point remains is that digital imaging is not quite up to par with traditional film. That's why there are still a lot of people who prefer working in film rather than digital, like, for example, Mary Ellen Mark.<br>

John</p>

 

[bryan_loo]

<p>First of all,</p>

<p>I'd like to thank both of you for the very good debate regarding lenses. But perhaps, I may be the cause of some of the frustration? I'm not quite certain if that word is apt to describe what's been happening. I apologise too that I didn't reply sooner, have been swamped with deadlines to meet. And I believe I wasn't all too clear what my actual intention for this thread was. I did toy with the idea initially to buy the Leica M9, however, it was just an idea. What I meant to ask in this thread goes as follows;</p>

<p>1. Given that digital has certain convenient advantages over film(no one can deny this I am certain) with regards to ISO, instant feedback and a more streamlined process of getting pictures from the camera to the monitor versus film. My main concern was with the ability to switch ISO as and when I wanted. Would it then be more economical to shoot the M9 with Summicron lenses instead of Summilux lenses given how speed is very much an important factor in film photography.</p>

<p>2. Even though I was willing to buy an M9, I never really settled into the idea. Mainly of how I love the whole film process. From darkroom, to my enlarger, perhaps my scanner and finally up on my wall plus, I've never ever seen digital replicate film grain quite like the actual thing. I will make it clear now, that I have no intention of buying the M9, I should have said this sooner, and I apologise. My choices now are down to the MP or the Zeiss Ikon. I stand by what I said before, I will not buy a used M6 or whatever other camera. Yes, economically, a used camera would make more sense, but this is perhaps what I referred to as my inane need.</p>

<p>3. The reason, I must elaborate on this I believe. Why it is that I'm hellbent on buying a new camera body is because I probably will never sell it. Depreciation and appreciation are of no concern to me. I want to buy one film body that will or I hope it will, outlast me. Barring theft or a natural disaster, it will probably always be with me. For that reason alone, I guess you could say that I want a new camera that I can call mine and mine alone for as long as I live. Perhaps a tad dramatic, but that's all there is to it. </p>

<p>4. As with the lenses. I will probably never sell them. Perhaps only if an update comes around for the lenses that renders my old lenses completely obsolete and if some wacky collector wants my old ones, then maybe I'd sell them for the newer ones. But since I started this thread, I've more or less learned that unlike DSLR lenses, M-mount lenses all have a unique signature to them and it isn't just the f-number that's important. Perhaps this holds true for DSLR or SLR lenses as well, but so far I haven't seen anyone talk about their lenses in quite the same fashion as I've read here. Lens depreciation or appreciation again, is hardly paramount.</p>

<p>5. And I find all statements about how this debate being ridiculous, a whole load of hogwash. Regardless of how much I am willing to spend, if there's savings to be had, I want them. No company would choose the more expensive business contract over the more economical one(take ethical choices and all that out of the picture) even though they deal in the hundreds of millions if not the billions. </p>

<p>6. Finally, Nomad was right in saying that I do have a nice pile of cash to spend on camera gear. Without going into too much detail(I'm not big on bragging), I can afford to buy both a 35mm system and a medium format kit. However it is not bottomless, if it was, and if I was the Sultan of Brunei. We wouldn't be having this conversation. And I am still wondering if I should buy a medium format camera at all. I will be a teacher in the future, so I might not run into such money again. Heh.</p>

<p>And then it brings me to what I've found out. After scouring the internet for every possible argument, review, counter-argument and analysis of the lenses discussed here. Including looking at samples on flickr as well as my local forums. One thing that is important to me regarding lenses is how well it can separate the subject from the fore/background. Bokeh rendering while a factor is less important than how a lens can render a subject in 3D or faux 3D. This at least is what I want to see in my pictures, and although my Spotmatic with it's Takumar lenses can do this well on occasion, mirror slap is really quite the problem. So without being too longwinded, despite the many admirers of the 50 Summicron, regardless of vintage, I just cannot bring myself to love what it creates. I am not saying that I am an experienced reviewer or anything like that, and I am certain that there are pictures floating around which demonstrate all that I mentioned above. But I have not seen them and thus, I believe I will buy the 50/2 Planar. Along with the 25/2.8 Biogon. I'm leaving the telephoto out for now, I have never seen the need for one, nor have I liked using any of my own.</p>

<p>The only thing still on my mind, which is perhaps a little silly, is whether the build quality is up to spec with the Leica lenses. And I will most probably buy a Leica MP a la carte as well, probably from Hong Kong, as it's a whole lot cheaper than Singapore and plus I have friends there I could visit for a little holiday. Perhaps John or David could share some thoughts on build quality. Thanks!</p>

[david_yang2]

<p>Bryan,<br /><br />Good luck with your purchase of the MP, it's a wonderful film camera. If you are going with a la carte, I personally would choose the M7 style film crank than the twist knob; for some people the twist knob can be quite a pain (literally) to use for winding a roll of film (especially 36 exp). It's a personal preference of course but I would suggest you consider that when choosing the options.<br /><br />On built quality, I don't think you can really go wrong with either Leica or Zeiss, both are built with the intention of out lasting multiple people's lifetime (without abuse of course). From time to time you might want to just make sure your infinity focus doesn't overshoot (if it does have it adjusted), and that your moving parts maintain smooth operation (not a huge deal but good practice). <br /><br />As for price point, if your travels will take you to Europe, you may likely find better deals in Germany depending on where the Euro goes from here. As of now, I am intending to pick up my new Summilux 35mm ASPH from Germany when I am there later this year, as of now it is about USD$500 cheaper than I can buy it in the U.S. (that only applies, of course, if you are not an EU resident and are therefore not subjected to the 19% VAT)<br /><br />Lastly, IF money is no object, and you really wanted a brand new film body that is a bit special for yours to keep forever, here is a set that certainly raised my eyes: <a href="http://www.leicapages.com/m7.html">http://www.leicapages.com/m7.html</a><br /><br />I believe you can still find unopened sets floating around somewhere (I'd check eBay).<br>

As much money as I spend on my cameras, I cannot justify buying this set, but maybe you will feel differently :)<br /><br />Happy shooting!<br />David</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>an M9, like all small format digicams to date, is a disposable camera. That's not to take anything away from its performance or build quality, but if comes down to value for money/longevity, the MP or M7 are simply in another league.</p>