Is the lens worthy of the name?

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another kind of question about the x1 - instead of 'when is it coming'.

 

To the Leica fold/purists/experts/fans here - do you think the LEICA ELMARIT 1:2.8/24 mm lens on the x1 is comparable to the stand alone lens. Since it is not a fixed size/ collapses / etc - do you feel this is a lens that should be labeled as it is?

 

Over the last month, reading all the pros and cons - I continue to believe (as a newcomer with no vested interest whatsoever) that the Leica optics are > than the panacanofujinikons. Someone at dpreview (can't remember the thread) talked about how the Leica glow is a myth in the digital age - and frankly as a beginner, I think they're wrong. Why would someone so new to this art view the stas, exif, etc. and be drawn to one brand.

 

I looked at images I liked. I broke them down. consistently I felt/feel that Leica does have a leg up.

 

So in the discussions of price / problems / value quite a few have brought up the lens saying (to paraphrase) ' you're basically getting a free body for the price of the great lens' which was countered with - 'it's not the same lens, this one collapses'

 

As a further note about Leica lenses: I just keep thinking - if I as a complete novice see it - how can more experienced people not see it? I didn't hear about a super chic brand and wind up here, I wound up here because I looked at images and the constant was Leica lenses. Before viewing exif data I'd never heard of Leica. Spending time on dpreview, trying a few cams, I still am AMAZED at the quality of images made with the gear here (of course backed by a tremendous amount of talent). Don't get me wrong - some photos at the other boards are quite nice, but they lack a .. pop / 3d / clarity.

 

So what do you think - is this lens attached to the x1 worthy of the name it receives? I recently saw some images made with the stand alone lens on a g1 that were, without doubt, better in every way than the panasonic lenses, just as an added fwiw. I don't want to say 'is it a real Leica, where is it assembled,etc' Just only - does this lens with whatever problems the body may carry - deserve the same name as it's sibling / cousin?

 

Thanks for parsing this lengthy read and for any forthcoming responses from those having far greater knowledge than myself.

[wda]

Another kind of question about the x1 - instead of 'when is it coming'.

 

To the Leica fold/purists/experts/fans here - do you think the LEICA ELMARIT 1:2.8/24 mm lens on the x1 is comparable to the stand alone lens. Since it is not a fixed size/ collapses / etc - do you feel this is a lens that should be labeled as it is?

 

HOOligan, I think the first point to make is that the name 'Elmarit' is a generic name for a Leica lens whose maximum aperture is F/2.8.

 

Secondly, only the experts who have tested the X1 will be able to compare its performance with modern interchangeable lens equivalents. However from my experience, over many years of using Leica lenses, I would be amazed if the X1 lens did not perform as well as the best contemporary Leica lenses. It has nothing to do with whether it retracts or not. The 90mm Macro Elmar retracts without detriment to its high performance.

 

Early published pictures do nothing to cause me to doubt that the lens will be superb. Time will tell!

[Clandrel]

I do believe it's just as good lense. The problem for me is that I know it's retractable and is made of plastic (at least more plastic than the Elmarit lense) so my brain twists the truth and makes this lense less good than the normal Leica Elmarit lense.

 

I think it's just as good, but my mind screws with me.

It's like buying a car with normal plastic dashboard, compared to one with leather dashboard. They do the job just as good (being a dashboard - ha ha), but I think all of us would like the leather. Stupid comparison! Ha ha.

 

C

[jsrockit]

I doubt it is as good... but I think it is still a good Leica lens.

[lct]

Comparison of the X1's Elmarit 24/2.8 ("Elmarit-X" hereafter) with Elmarit-M 28/2.4 and Elmar-M 24/3.8

Sources: Chasseur d'Images # 290 (Elmarit-M) & # 319 (Elmarit-X & Elmar-M)

 

Vignetting at full aperture:

Elmarit-X 24/2.8: 0.3%

Elmarit-M 24/2.8: 0.1% (on M8)

Elmar-M 24/3.8: 0.7% (on M9)

 

Chromatic aberration:

Elmarit-X 24/2.8: 0.08%

Elmarit-M 24/2.8: 0.09% (on M8)

Elmar-M 24/3.8: 0.09% (on M9)

 

Distortion:

Elmarit-X 24/2.8: 0.37%

Elmarit-M 24/2.8: 0.33% (on M8)

Elmar-M 24/3.8: 0.28% (on M9)

 

Sharpness:

Elmarit-X 24/2.8: Excellent from f/2.8 to f/16

Elmarit-M 24/2.8: Excellent from f/2.8 to f/16 (on M8)

Elmar-M 24/3.8: Excellent from f/3.8 to f/16 (on M9)

[peterb]

Leica lenses on digital M cameras need no introduction.

 

Leica designed lenses on cameras shared with Panasonic have been shown to be excellent performers.

 

The Digilux 2 had a Summicron (if you can believe it) that is still talked about with great reverence (there's an entire thread or two on the 'look').

 

While the Elmarit on the X1 is not the SAME Elmarit put onto an M, from everything I've read and seen it's certainly worthy of the family name in terms of the kinds of images it is capable of delivering

 

That said, my guess is the entire X1 concept was for Leica to put together in one compact body a top quality lens with a top quality sensor and see what happens. While there have been some disappointments about construction (the looseness of the dials in one thread) and AF speed (from everything I gather a major let down given the price of the thing) and the choice of LCD (what was awesome four years ago is sooooo passe today), by the measure of what's really important to most folks on these pages who consider buying this company's products in the first place (i.e. i.q.) I'd say they've succeeded.

[h00ligan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

HOOligan, I think the first point to make is that the name 'Elmarit' is a generic name for a Leica lens whose maximum aperture is F/2.8.

 

Thanks for the naming education - I didn't know that.

 

The problem for me is that I know it's retractable and is made of plastic (at least more plastic than the Elmarit lense) so my brain twists the truth and makes this lense less good than the normal Leica Elmarit lense.

Our brains are tricky!

 

I doubt it is as good... but I think it is still a good Leica lens.

Why not - does seeing LCT's response change that thought?

Comparison of the X1's Elmarit 24/2.8 ("Elmarit-X" hereafter) with Elmarit-M 28/2.4 and Elmar-M 24/3.8

Sources: Chasseur d'Images # 290 (Elmarit-M) & # 319 (Elmarit-X & Elmar-M)

Very interesting - it certainly looks like it stacks up on paper! Thanks for finding / posting that.

 

The Digilux 2 had a Summicron (if you can believe it) that is still talked about with great reverence (there's an entire thread or two on the 'look').

 

While there have been some disappointments about construction (the looseness of the dials in one thread) and AF speed (from everything I gather a major let down given the price of the thing) and the choice of LCD (what was awesome four years ago is sooooo passe today), by the measure of what's really important to most folks on these pages who consider buying this company's products in the first place (i.e. i.q.) I'd say they've succeeded.

 

Good points on the Digilux 2 - and yes, it's a bummer they didn't address (or at least don't have seemed to) the issues discussed. I'm not sure why they went with such a low cost/performance lcd on a camera this expensive.

 

Thanks for the thoughts everyone - I guess time will tell, I just wonder if the x1 can be thought of in a way like 'get the body free' while buying a great lens and figured this might be a good discussion to break up the ' when will it be here ' threads. There's certainly a heated debate on this camera - from both sides.

[jsrockit]

Why not - does seeing LCT's response change that thought?

 

No, those are stats...they mean nothing to me. I've used Leica lenses enough in the past (unfortunately, not these days) to know what their magic is and when I see it. I'm not sure I see it in the X1. I like the X1, I'm just not sure I see any magic and pixie dust.

[cheewai_m6]

i've read a lot of dpreview reviews. those guys won't know a good lens if it bit them on the nuts. all they ever crap on about are graphs, techno bull crap data sheets. if you see a photo from the x1 and you feel or see it has that look, then it's got that look. since there is no scientific data saying whether 'the leica glow' exists or not, then it means it subjective.

 

one thing though, leica don't make bad lenses.

[earleygallery]

I'd want to see decent sized prints before making any conclusions, but remember also that the lens will have been designed specifically for the camera/sensor. Of course the construction means that the cost is lower (plastic v metal, no aperture/focus rings etc).

 

Free body with the lens? that idea doesn't quite work as the lens is useless without the camera which it's fixed to (unlike an M lens) but if the quality does compare then it makes the price of the X1 look more reasonable certainly.