How does Leica glass compare to the rest of the world?

[MikeMyers]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure how to word this, but I'll try.

 

When I got my first M camera a lifetime ago, the choices we have now didn't exist. For me it came down to an RF 35mm, with at least three lenses. For a long time to come, it was back and forth between the M2 and a Nikon SP. The lenses I had were based on getting "a wide angle, a medium focal length, and a telephoto". Image quality never came up - Leica, Nikon, Contax, Canon - they were all quite good.

 

Nowadays in this forum I hear so many people talking about the wonderful performance of Leica glass. The lenses are sharp, free from distortion, and have good "bokeh". It all makes for great reading, but if I try to describe any of this to someone, they usually "just don't get it".

 

I've now personally got some Leica glass, some Voigtlander glass, and then too, lenses for my Nikons (both from Nikon and from lower priced manufacturers). For the sake of simplicity, let me stick to only the M series lenses. I'd like to ask the following:

 

a) What is the difference in image quality between a multi-thousand dollar Leica lens, and a multi-hundred dollar lens from other manufacturers?

 

Can anyone here post a photo that THEY have taken themselves, with each type of lens, and which clearly shows the difference?

 

 

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the person will be making an 8x10 print, or posting the image on the internet. Let's assume that it will be in color, and it will be a hand held shot (no tripod) in adequate illumination. I'd like to see a "real image" (not a photo of a test chart) that illustrates the difference so well that an average person can't miss it.

 

(I'm talking about ordinary images, not something specialized. I know an f/0.5 lens, if it were available, could do things other lenses couldn't, but that's too specialized an application. I'm talking about "average" lens openings. I'm also thinking of an ordinary wide-angle, normal, or tele lens - not a 12mm lens or a 1000 mm lens. As for the image to show this difference, it should be something that maybe fills the average computer screen, not a 100% crop of something that would print ten feet wide. Lastly, the lenses are assumed to be good working versions, not a lens that needs adjustment by the factory.)

[Advertisement]

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

[h00ligan]

Have a poke around http://stevehuffphoto.com - I feel like his reviews of other gear may help you with this question. Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, you never know who knows what about whom.

[Shade]

Hi.. Well this discussion will have many many answers..

 

Here's what I think, what a lens brand differs from another, and the reason why I pick it. And no, I won't post pictures at the moment as I'm online from my mobile.

 

1. Certain lenses gives out a certain colour cast. Which in turn gives a more pleasing or displeasing colour, depending on the user. I may like Leica's colour, some may not. Even in leica glass itself, there may be difference in colour cast (Stevehuff mentioned the old Noct is warmer than the new Noct).

 

2. Some lenses gives out a softer and smoother bokeh, dispite the aperture. By softer and smoother I mean the bokeh doesn't incorporate a bright ring circle around the oof area. But this again, comes down to preferences. Some like it, some don't, some won't even notice it. Leica tends to provide a softer bokeh compared to other lenses. But not all leica lenses are this way, some leica glass do give out a rough bokeh as well. Only certain lenses.

 

3. Sharpness wise, I think all lenses are quite sharp if you're focusing accurately. But how sharp is sharp? Is sharp meaning you can see someone's pore on the face of a portrait picture? If so, some leica glass are that sharp, but again - not all. There are other brands that are sharper than leica glass. Macro lenses from Nikon or Canon are plenty sharp for me!

 

4. Materials used wise, I think Leica currently is the best well made lens I ever laid my hands on. Its tough, its precise, it just oozes out high technical grade. I rarely encounter focus errors, malfunctions, and such, even in a lens that dated back to 1960s.

 

5. The brand, the pride.. Owning a Leica is like owning a Ferrari. Sure it takes you to places, it has air conditioning and everything else a Honda or a Toyota does.. But driving a Ferrarri is just different. You feel different, you look different, people look at you differently.

 

6. On print.. From all the summed up thoughts above, on an 8 x 10, I don't think "common" people (as in people not involved deeply in technically in photography) will notice much difference. Sure you can pin point several differences if you put the same exact picture side by side from a Nikon lens and a Leica lens, but then what's the point of having the same picture on the wall? Besides, its not about the lens, its not about the bokeh, its not about the sharpness. Its about conveying your picture to your viewer correctly, be it an emotion, a moment, a scenery, etc.

 

 

So then you might ask, why did *I* choose a Leica? Because Leica provides the best technical instrument for *MY* usage. Will I not be able to take pictures if I don't have a Leica? Hell no, I've been using Voigts Zeiss Sonys Nikons etc.. And I like 'em. I just like my pictures taken with a leica better - technically - not illustratively. I just like to see the bokeh to be slightly better, I like the colour better so I don't have to post..

 

I chose a Leica because I can.. And I want to.. Not because I need..

[MikeMyers]

Shade, I used to feel the way you describe things, up until the point when I showed up at the University of Michigan for a photography class, and the instructor beat me up verbally over that attitude (and strangely, yes, it was a Leica that I had with me at the time).

 

Since dealing with him for a year, the camera to me is not much more significant than a wrench is to a mechanic. You use whatever will get the job done... at least according to him. Tightening down a bolt, it gets just as tight with a high-price Snap-On tool set as it does with Craftsman tools costing a small fraction of the price.

 

I've got no problems with anyone liking the Leica because it's such a fine precision instrument, and looks and works so well. That's how I felt before the instructor did his best to get me to think differently. As I see it now, there's nothing wrong with liking and loving a Leica as a beautiful piece of manufacturing precision and perfection, but that's as alien to the way I think now, as the guys who buy a new Leica and never even use it, just leaving it in a sealed box on a shelf as a collector's item.

 

I have no idea if anyone will post some comparison photos here, but I'd like to see a few comparisons between Leica lenses (probably over $2K right now) and lower priced lenses for a small fraction of the cost. I'd love to do this myself, if it wasn't for the money it would take. It used to be that I could go down to mid-town Manhattan, and browse through hundreds of reasonably priced used lenses at the various camera shops. I wish I could do that today...

 

Anyway, if anyone wants to post comparison photos, I'm curious how big a difference there will be.

 

Just for grins, please post the photos without identifying which is which.

[giordano]

Mike, there's a problem posting non-Leica shots here, namely that it's against the rules. Maybe Andreas will make a dispensation if you ask him nicely. Meanwhile I've put some of my shots taken with different cameras and lenses into a virtual gallery at Examples - jn's Photos. (Unfortunately Smugmug won't let me arrange the pix in a logical sequence.)

 

Comments are welcome.

[k-hawinkler]

Mike, there's a problem posting non-Leica shots here, namely that it's against the rules. Maybe Andreas will make a dispensation if you ask him nicely. Meanwhile I've put some of my shots taken with different cameras and lenses into a virtual gallery at Examples - jn's Photos. (Unfortunately Smugmug won't let me arrange the pix in a logical sequence.)

 

Comments are welcome.

 

Well, yes it does. After you have finished uploading your images you need to check the box arrange mode that is displayed under the image currently shown. Then you can change the order of the images.

 

K-H.

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the person will be making an 8x10 print, or posting the image on the internet.

A long time ago when I was a student, my undergraduate project was a comparison of photographs produced using Minolta and Leica systems by both viewing a final 10" x 8" print and by an MTF comparison. The conclusions I reached then were that any visually differences in the 10" x 8" print were real nuances and had to be looked for extremely carefully, whilst the Leica MTF showed a substantially better cascaded result.

 

However, the MTF data relevant to the 10" x 8" print was not actually dramatically different and in order to show up differences, a much larger print size would have been needed (the Leica system MTF indicated that more detail had been resolved, but this was not relevant to a 10" x 8" print).

 

So to answer your question, I think that the idea of showing real differences in either an 8" x 10" print or by a posting a relatively small jpeg on the web is inherently flawed. Subtleties of bokeh too, tend to be more relevant at higher enlargements when both the shape, gradation and quite importantly, to me at least, colour 'fringing' around out of focus highlights will be considerable more evident.

 

I'd say that most high end digital cameras using 'good' lenses are now very capable indeed. I personally use Canon's, including a 5D2, with their fast L primes. I also use an M8 and three fast primes. IMHO there are differences and these differences vary depending on subject matter and aperture used. I generally print up to A2 where the M lenses show their wealth of fine detail, smooth tonality and un-coloured bokeh very well indeed. The Canon lenses do still perform well, but wide open lack the real bite of the M lenses and tend to have some 'chroma' style colour fringing around out of focus highlights. Dare I say that at 'optimum' apertures the M lenses seem to provide a very smooth tonality throughout the image which is slightly different rather than better than that from the Canon lenses though I still have to figure out why this should be - different lens coatings perhaps?

 

So if I am able to use my M8 and lenses for a particular shoot (apart from my own pleasure that is) I will do so - at the end of the day I feel more satisfied with the end result because I can appreciate the subtle differences and I know that I have produced as technically adept images as I was able to.

 

All that said, I have just supplied a client with a large number of stock images taken on a whole variety of cameras including Fuji S2Pro, Canon 1DS, 5D and 5D2 and Leica M8. All are fit for purpose:)!

[giordano]

Well, yes it does. After you have finished uploading your images you need to check the box arrange mode that is displayed under the image currently shown. Then you can change the order of the images.

 

K-H.

 

I've known that since before I started using Smugmug. But it seems to be different when the gallery contains photos "collected" from other galleries (a recent innovation) rather than pictures that one has uploaded to it. I'm waiting to hear from the smuggies.

[k-hawinkler]

I've known that since before I started using Smugmug. But it seems to be different when the gallery contains photos "collected" from other galleries (a recent innovation) rather than pictures that one has uploaded to it. I'm waiting to hear from the smuggies.

 

Thanks. I have not tried that new feature yet.

 

K-H.

[markgay]

Other posters have already said you’ll barely see the differences on the web and only nuances in a 10 by 8 print.

 

So clearly part of the value of Leica lenses is something others are not going to see. Heck, some people rarely show their photographs to another living being so why take them at all? It’s part of the same question. (I know, Mike, you narrowed the issue down to M lenses but please allow me to digress).

 

My answer, in order of importance, would be:

1) Size. A key reason I returned to rangefinders after 25 years was that Leica lenses offered the same or better quality in a much smaller package.

 

2) Portability. I’ll take pictures I would never take with an SLR or MF because I’m never going to carry that camera bag.

 

3) Overall speed of operation. A rangefinder is much faster to use in the whole act of taking a photograph (this has nothing to do with fast-moving objects which is a different matter). Another reason I’ll take pictures I never would capture with bigger lenses.

 

4) Low light. Even though there are many fast lenses available for SLRs and cheaper, too, not many of us bought them. Be honest. Leica’s lenses are all fast by comparison. Again, this tends to different types of image. The Zeiss M lenses are often as fast and of very high quality. I only have the 15mm/2.8 and that, compared to my Wate, is exceptional.

 

5) I don’t like zooms. I like to make the compositional decision and if that means crossing the street, I’ll do it. The zoom may save me a walk but the I’ll have to accept how it frames the shot and I could miss a lot by not getting closer to my subject. This changes the image.

 

Mike’s definition in the original post of image quality must, IMHO, be broadened. It’s not about resolution or even shades of grey. It’s also about the type of image, what you go looking for and whether you take the photograph at all.

 

Now to answer the question )) Doesn't it, in the age of computer-design (it's not really -aided any more, is it) come up against physics and the materials available? The days have passed when Walter Mandler could put a human signature on lenses through the compromises he made between micro and macro contrast.

 

The physics of the possible has changed the look we expect: high contrast giving apparent sharpness and zingy colours at the expense of tonal transitions. Whether lens designers following fashion or science there is greater homogeneity. So when lenses are made to the tightest tolerances with the best materials and attention to skill the differences, at this high level, are going to be harder to spot.

 

I like to think Leica, as a smaller company, is still able to reflect the decisions of the engineer in its lenses and, if it's less evident with the newest versions, you can always go back to Mandler. There's a great thread about specific lenses, with lots of images here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

Regards,

Mark

[pgk]

Doesn't it, in the age of computer-design (it's not really -aided any more, is it) come up against physics and the materials available? The days have passed when Walter Mandler could put a human signature on lenses through the compromises he made between micro and macro contrast.

Mark

Mark

 

I think that the drivers are now economic. If you look at the latest few lenses from Canon - the new ultra-wide shift lens, revised 24/1.4 and L 100 macro - they are all reputedly very, very good indeed. But compared with the lenses they 'replace' they are more expensive. In order to produce lenses which will seriously perform as well as the latest high MPixel sensors require, design and manufacturer's tolerances have to be very high and so cost increases. Its an accolade to Leica that even many of their existing pre-digital lenses are capable of very fine images even on the latest M digitals but producing compact, fast lenses with superlative optics is not a cheap option. Comparisons on 10" x 8" or web are IMHO pretty meaningless.

 

Oh yes, and I thoroughly agree with you about zooms - I own none - far better to concentrate on composition and perspective (background) with fixed focals as far as I'm concerned - not everyone will agree nor do they have too, but its my preferred way of working.

[menos I M6]

The first time, I tried a Leica, I (unknowingly) bought a M6 + 50 Lux ASPH.

I had no idea about the different Leica bodies, the history of models, the lenses or even the obvious pedigree especially the 50 Lux ASPH as a modern lens had.

 

My favorite lens until that time has been a Nikon 50 f1.4 AF-S, so my decision, to grab a Leica 50 f1.4 was just natural.

 

Oh boy, did I not get my jaw picked up from the floor, when I saw the first developed rolls!

 

I was immediately struck by:

 

- blisteringly sharp rendering from wide open across the whole frame, whereas all Nikon lenses, I had used until then always had some kind of softness wide open and sharpened up moderately half a stop closed down, to find a peak at f4 or smaller.

 

- extremely smooth and natural, background rendering

 

- no strange smeared light blobs at the edge of the frame as any fast Nikon prime, I had used so far wide open

 

The difference in quality was immediately perceivable (despite these things do not always matter much - especially in small prints).

 

There is one thing though, one must always account: you really compare a multi thousand Euro lens to a lens, that costs just a few hundred Euro. There simply is no contest here.

I still use Nikon DSLRs of course - and my mobile phone camera and PS cameras and whatever gets a shot.

 

The most I enjoy though, shooting Leica glass (doesn't matter much, if it is a Leica body, which catches the light).

[giordano]

1) Size. <snip>

2) Portability. <snip>

100% yes to both.

3) Overall speed of operation. A rangefinder is much faster to use in the whole act of taking a photograph (this has nothing to do with fast-moving objects which is a different matter).

Certainly this used to be true of Leica Ms - though not of rangefinder cameras in general (e.g. a basic 35mm SLR such as a Spotmatic or Nikon F is much faster to use in every way than a 4x5 rangefinder-equipped press or technical camera). But if Leica's speed advantage was decisive in those days it's been whittled away by the last few years' improvements in DSLR AF and AE.

4) Low light. Even though there are many fast lenses available for SLRs and cheaper, too, not many of us bought them. Be honest. Leica’s lenses are all fast by comparison.

What is a 24mm f/3.8 lens fast by comparison with?

 

5) I don’t like zooms. I like to make the compositional decision and if that means crossing the street, I’ll do it. The zoom may save me a walk but the I’ll have to accept how it frames the shot and I could miss a lot by not getting closer to my subject. This changes the image.

You don't have to like zooms, but you don't need to talk garbage. Zoom lenses do not nail your feet to the ground and do not stop you making compositional decisions. Real photographers use their feet to choose the viewpoint and the zoom to adjust the framing. And sometimes, I'll get a fleeting shot while you're looking for the nearest pedestrian crossing.

[Guest BigSplash]

Mike, there's a problem posting non-Leica shots here, namely that it's against the rules. Maybe Andreas will make a dispensation if you ask him nicely. Meanwhile I've put some of my shots taken with different cameras and lenses into a virtual gallery at Examples - jn's Photos. (Unfortunately Smugmug won't let me arrange the pix in a logical sequence.)

 

Comments are welcome.

 

Mike I urge you to look at John's collection and especially the collection "Photography- Examples" where he has taken some superb images taken with a M8, Digilux, M film, Rollei, Nikon D700 and D200 are compared. I found it very informative and thank John for giving me the link yesterday and the opportunity to see the IQ differences.(NB If you click on the large images it gives the camera details etc)

 

My conclusion as an amateur observer is that the M8 seems to be very near to a scanned film image. I was struck that the M8 seems to have overall a better colour rendering and a wider contrast range IMHO. I felt that the D700 gave the same level of detail as the M8 but in terms of dynamic brightness range and colour it was not as good...my opinion.

 

I actually downloaded one file (D700 image) and played with it using photoshop to force the colour balance and that made the colour rendering closer to what the M8 achieved ..but it was not quite as good IMHO.

 

To be clear this is my amateur opinion and is certainly not a technical comparison at all. For that I guess one would need both cameras and lenses side by side, proper white balance set up and arguably some test equipment to analyse the images.

 

I also get the impression that there seems to be a difference between consumer Nikon and Canon Lenses and those that the pros use...I read some reports on this.

 

Finally I think your prof. at school should find another job as verbally beating up students because they trust their equipment is probably unhelpful. I have always felt that if (as happens too often), I take a poor photo with a Leica then it is difficult to blame the camera or lens!

[stunsworth]

My conclusion as an amateur observer is that the M8 seems to be very near to a scanned film image

 

In areas of definition, colour fidelity and sharpness that isn't my impression. Compared to scans from my Nikon Coolscan V the M8 wins hands down in all those areas IMHO.

 

I've no intention of opening another film v digital debate, I merely mention this as being how I see a comparison between the two.

 

As for being able to see difference between Leica glass and other manufacturers, I think a lot of it is in the mind - particularly if you shoot at f5.6 or f8. Any decent lens will produce great results at those apertures. Where the Leica glass wins out is when shooting wide open. I know I can use my Summicrons at f2 and still get a technically superb photograph. Not something I've always experienced with other manufacturers.

[pgk]

You don't have to like zooms, but you don't need to talk garbage. Zoom lenses do not nail your feet to the ground and do not stop you making compositional decisions. Real photographers use their feet to choose the viewpoint and the zoom to adjust the framing.

You are of course correct, except that I've watched people learning photography with their dSLR and bundled ' standard' zoom lens. Its really not a good way to learn about composition, perspective and background and early adopted habits are hard to break. Sure people can change position, perspective etc., with a zoom but human nature being what it is I find that they tend not to. Nor are such lenses a good way to learn about basics such as depth of field as f/3.5 and smaller produce images lacking the 'snap' of real differential focus. I'm on a hobby horse here - I think that cheap, 'standard' zooms do a dis-service to budding photographers!

[Per P.]

We all talk a good show when this topic comes up But I see very few photos...

 

Is anyone willing to admit that the handling and RF characteristics are important enough that even if other lenses were deemed equally good then it wouldn't matter to our choice?

 

For me it is, of course, important that the lenses are excellent given their pricetags. But I don't need them to be better than my old Canon L glass in order to justify my choice of main camera system.

 

Per.

[bill]

I can honestly say that I cannot think of a single image that I have taken with Leica glass that I could not have taken with equipment from another manufacturer. However, there are many that I would not have taken.

 

For me, the image is just the end of the journey. Leica glass is both a facilitator to and a companion on that journey. I would rather travel first-class than steerage, any time.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest BigSplash]

In areas of definition, colour fidelity and sharpness that isn't my impression. Compared to scans from my Nikon Coolscan V the M8 wins hands down in all those areas IMHO.

 

I've no intention of opening another film v digital debate, I merely mention this as being how I see a comparison between the two.

 

As for being able to see difference between Leica glass and other manufacturers, I think a lot of it is in the mind - particularly if you shoot at f5.6 or f8. Any decent lens will produce great results at those apertures. Where the Leica glass wins out is when shooting wide open. I know I can use my Summicrons at f2 and still get a technically superb photograph. Not something I've always experienced with other manufacturers.

 

Actually what I was trying to say was that in John's collection of photos:

> the scanned images (taken from film) was approaching the images taken with a M8 in terms of colour rendering etc.

> the D700 and D200 images seemed to be different IMHO.

 

This is an opinion only and I guess there is a dependence on the actual scanner used. I am not suggestion that film somehow equates in IQ to digital ....my gosh, heaven forbid ..whI cannot imagine where that debate would go!

[Vern Dewit]

I can honestly say that I cannot think of a single image that I have taken with Leica glass that I could not have taken with equipment from another manufacturer. However, there are many that I would not have taken.

 

For me, the image is just the end of the journey. Leica glass is both a facilitator to and a companion on that journey. I would rather travel first-class than steerage, any time.

 

I could not agree more Bill! Can anyone prove empirically that a Bentley will get me home faster or easier than a Ford pickup truck? Nope. But I know which one I'd enjoy using more...