New Sean Reid Article

[cme4brain]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The latest in the series of lens-testing article from Sean Reid is now on-line. My assessment of the article (and my close-held view) is that Leica lenses, while tic better than the competition, may not be worth the price. LeicaNuts will bombard me with their opinions that one line/mm resolution or microcontrast on a test bench means Leica is better, I am sure. But in the real photography world, I have said it makes little difference, and now easy lens testing by the M8, IMHO, proves it. Leica lenses are great, but not worth the $1500 to $2500 addtional price tag (for me) over CV or Zeiss lenses. LeicaNuts, unleash your unjustified anger! Let the games begin! Deny reality and objective lens testing! Sidestep your purchase price! While you grown-up camera nerds will be doing that, I will be take virtually EQUAL pictures with my CV and Zeiss lenses, and I will bet you can't tell the difference! Keep taking the drugs that Leica sends you! Its Leica or nothing! If we build it, LeicaNuts will come! And pay any price for no real-world effective performance difference!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[robsteve]

Some of us buy most of our lenses used and a used Leica lens at a good price is not that much more than a new Zeiss or CV lens. I notice the 15mm CV lenses on Ebay are selling more used than I paid new for mine a few years back. There just tends to be fewer used Zeiss or CV lenses available.

 

If you buy a Leica lens used, they tend to maintain their value or appreciate. I don't have any idea how the Zeiss or CV lenses will maintain their value in the long run.

[pascal_meheut]

Whow, an entire story all by yourself, with of course the help of your imaginaries ennemies , the LeicaNuts...

Do you write children stories ? like "cme4brain vs the LeicaNuts" or "Revenge of the Summilux" ?

[scott kirkpatrick]

This is a fine thread title, let's use it.

 

Let's can the artificial controversy, because the article, which is only posted in an incomplete, draft form, is full of useful comparisons among seven 28mm lenses. There are several sections to be completed by next week, and room for answers from Leica to some of the current questions, should those become available.

 

There is also some useful work distinguishing the two types of vignetting present at 28mm (overall luminance and color shift) and showing what the coded lenses do about it.

 

One thing I am noticing is that Sean looks first at holding all possible tones in a scene, rather than asking to dig out the shadow detail and let the highlights fly. So he shows a fondness for "sunny day lenses" with just a little flare to bring the shadow details up into range. This is in contrast to the "contre-jour" crowd, but there is almost enough information in his test shots to see how that style will work as well.

 

scott

[Peter41951]

Frankly, I buy what I want, and don't feel the need to justify my purchases to anyone, nor to denigrate others' purchases either. Or are you quoting from Sean's article?

[strick]

LeicaNuts will bombard me with their opinions ...

 

Sure, that would be a BIG deal :-)

 

I suppose it's disappointing to you, but I, although being a Leica-photographer, don't care about the quality of the lenses. O.k., a little bit :-) But the cameras are even more appealing to me: easy to handle, means: being no feature-overloaded wall between me and the subject, reliable, sturdy, and for this in some way calming down (there are enough things that must be done high-speedy ...), no easy come easy go trash, finally. Supporting my style of making photos. That's all.

 

Yours,

Greg

[robsteve]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My take on the results is the 28mm Summicron is the best performer wide open, but the 28mm f3.5 Voigtlander at f8 is can hold its own and looks as good as the Leica lenses.

 

The resolution test pictures were in B&W, so opinions might change when looking at color pictures.

[jaapv]

I'm a LeicaNut I suppose... And I use Leica, Zeiss, CV and Novoflex lenses as I please..

[tom0511]

The latest in the series of lens-testing article from Sean Reid is now on-line. My assessment of the article (and my close-held view) is that Leica lenses, while tic better than the competition, may not be worth the price. LeicaNuts will bombard me with their opinions that one line/mm resolution or microcontrast on a test bench means Leica is better, I am sure. But in the real photography world, I have said it makes little difference, and now easy lens testing by the M8, IMHO, proves it. Leica lenses are great, but not worth the $1500 to $2500 addtional price tag (for me) over CV or Zeiss lenses. LeicaNuts, unleash your unjustified anger! Let the games begin! Deny reality and objective lens testing! Sidestep your purchase price! While you grown-up camera nerds will be doing that, I will be take virtually EQUAL pictures with my CV and Zeiss lenses, and I will bet you can't tell the difference! Keep taking the drugs that Leica sends you! Its Leica or nothing! If we build it, LeicaNuts will come! And pay any price for no real-world effective performance difference!

 

1) I do find that there is a difference in color / look betweenLeica and Zeiss and I personally prefer the warmer Leica look.

2) Leica offers a wider range of lenses, specially speedy lenses like the Noctilux or 75/1.4

3) and most important: what might no be worth $1500-2500 to you can very well be worth it for other people.

[andym911]

cme4brain,

yesterday you posted in a thread about how much you like your M6,there are much cheaper rangefinders than the M6 which will also keep the film flat, and the result will be indistinguishable, but you apparently bought it and like it.

 

Just as users here buy and use whatever lenses they want, relax and enjoy your lenses.

[Jean LeBlanc]

While you grown-up camera nerds will be doing that, I will be take virtually EQUAL pictures with my CV and Zeiss lenses, and I will bet you can't tell the difference! Keep taking the drugs that Leica sends you! Its Leica or nothing! If we build it, LeicaNuts will come! And pay any price for no real-world effective performance difference!

 

Are you here for any purpose other than to insult people? And if you're going to insult people, why don't you name names, and post your home address?

[sean_reid]

Given the way this thread has started off, it is in danger of moving off in directions that won't be useful to anyone. Please, let's not do that!

 

No one has quoted me in this thread. I published the working draft of the article because it covers what I think is a central set of connected challenges for M8 photographers: color, filters, cyan drift, coding, correction, etc. That whole system, which is central to using the M8 for color work, is at the heart of the article.

 

I would *not* argue that Leica lenses are not worth the money and I hope we'll skip a general argument like that because its a red herring compared to what we really need to think about. What the article, so far, does demonstrate is that there are also lenses from CV and Zeiss that perform very well on the M8. I believe that photographers should have choices and, in this case, that those choices should include CV, Zeiss, etc.

 

That being the case, my energy is largely focused on two questions:

 

1) To what extent might the corrections designed for the Leica lenses work well on other lenses? Which lenses might work well with the 28 Summicron in-camera processing? Which with the 28 Elmarit? etc.

 

2) How might we give access to this in-camera processing to Leica lenses that are not coded and to other lenses that cannot be coded. BTW, I'm very interested in the "proof of concept" permanent marker thread. Imagine if so simple a solution could work...

 

Let's keep this thread constructive. Lloyd started it on a rather combative note but let's move away from that and deal with the more important questions.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[john_r_smith]

The Leica M-series camera users among you should feel pleased that you have the choice of three different lens manufacturers, all of whom provide an excellent product in their respective ways. This is not a problem, it's a blessing. Compare that to the Hasselblad 500 series cameras for example, where the Zeiss lenses are the only option available. Wonderful as these lenses are, sometimes it would be nice to have the choice of a Schneider instead, for a different look or a special purpose. Choice is a good thing, and to be celebrated, not made the basis of some childish "my lens is better than your cheapo lens" or "my lens is as good as your lens, and yours cost twice as much" nonsense.

 

PS Looking back at my post I see Sean has pre-empted me with a sensible post making much the same point. He says it better than I can

 

 

John

[rosuna]

When I buy a Leica lens I pay for

 

1) Build quality.

 

2) Quality control. Every lens is tested in factory. No random-sample based uqality control. No surprises.

 

3) Great performance. The fastest the lens is, the bigger the difference between Leica and others. It is easy to make a great 50mm f/2.8 lens, but a 35mm f/1.4 is a different thing.

 

4) Support. Long guarantee, and support to every product manufactured in the last 50 years.

 

When the differences in performance and build quality are small, the differences in price are also small.

 

Many Voigtländer and Zeiss products are very interesting, but many Leica lenses are competitive, whereas many others have no competition.

[sean_reid]

The Leica M-series camera users among you should feel pleased that you have the choice of three different lens manufacturers, all of whom provide an excellent product in their respective ways. This is not a problem, it's a blessing. Compare that to the Hasselblad 500 series cameras for example, where the Zeiss lenses are the only option available. Wonderful as these lenses are, sometimes it would be nice to have the choice of a Schneider instead, for a different look or a special purpose. Choice is a good thing, and to be celebrated, not made the basis of some childish "my lens is better than your cheapo lens" or "my lens is as good as your lens, and yours cost twice as much" nonsense.

 

PS Looking back at my post I see Sean has pre-empted me with a sensible post making much the same point. He says it better than I can

 

 

John

 

 

You make excellent points. Folks, please, let's not get into a lens brand battle - it would be a waste of time. Again, it is unfortunate that Lloyd (whom I like personally) began this thread so agressively. But let's ignore that aspect and just let it go. There are excellent lenses being made by all three companies, each having pros and cons, etc. What I'm interested in is how we can best use these different lenses on the M8, esp. for color work.

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Frankly, I buy what I want, and don't feel the need to justify my purchases to anyone, nor to denigrate others' purchases either. Or are you quoting from Sean's article?

 

I agree and no, he was not quoting me.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Peter41951]

Sean, I didn't think he was! I was a bit irritated he was using you as an excuse for having a rant.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

"One thing I am noticing is that Sean looks first at holding all possible tones in a scene, rather than asking to dig out the shadow detail and let the highlights fly. So he shows a fondness for "sunny day lenses" with just a little flare to bring the shadow details up into range."

scott

 

That approach shows us what effect these lenses can have on effective DR in the actual picture. One can shift the loss to one end or the other. In other words, one can increase exposure with a contrasty lens to bring up the shadow detail but then the highlights will get pushed off the scale.

 

When I first put this idea forward two years ago, some people questioned it. As many R-D1 photographers can now attest, this whole "sunny day" lens argument is real and does make a difference in pictures made in contrasty light. That doesn't mean that everyone will prefer a lower contrast lens for contrasty subject lighting but its interesting, at least, to know about the option.

 

In flatter light, I prefer the more contrasty lenses, esp. the newer Aspherical Leicas.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

Sean, I didn't think he was! I was a bit irritated he was using you as an excuse for having a rant.

 

I like Lloyd but I don't want to be mixed up in a brand battle either. Lets hope that apect of the thread cools and dies out.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

My take on the results is the 28mm Summicron is the best performer wide open, but the 28mm f3.5 Voigtlander at f8 is can hold its own and looks as good as the Leica lenses.

 

The resolution test pictures were in B&W, so opinions might change when looking at color pictures.

 

That little $300 CV is such an impressive lens. What I've found over the past few years of doing these tests is that B&W actually allows us to better see the differences among lenses that are not due to their color rendering. Color is such a powerful force in human perception that it can tend to overshadow other aspects.

 

My concern about color comparisons with the M8 right now is also that we don't quite have the final M8 color yet. That color will come from M8, plus filter, plus coding, plus new firmware plus, hopefully, revised C1 profiles. As such, the current color we see from the M8 may not quite match what we'll be seeing in two months and that means that the color rendition provided by the various lenses as we may see it now may not be representative of what we'll see long-term.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean