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

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Blind test report

 

I tried to guess Leica or rest of the world on the 24 images posted by giordano only using the preview screen on the right.

 

I was right 17x out of 24. No pixel peeping or anything else involved, just did it "feel like" a Leica picture at a first glance. If there was no difference I should have gotten about 12 right.

 

So my conclusion is that you can see the difference on screen from a small jpeg, but if you ask me what exactly the difference is I would be hard pressed to tell you.

[SJP]

for convenience giordano/john's pics are here

[tbarker13]

Hmmm. I could be wrong, but I don't think it's against the forum rules to post images shot with non Leica glass - as long as they were shot with a Leica camera. I think it's just that one piece of the equation (the camera or the lens) needs to be Leica.

At least, I've never run into any problems posting shots with my M8 armed with a Zeiss 50 Planar or Jupiter 3.

 

The OP, however, will have much better luck checking in with reviewers like Steve Huff (free) or Sean Reid (subscription) to see comparisons of similar lenses. Particularly if you are looking for similar lenses shooting similar scenes.

[xjr]

The answer to your question is rather simple. It is a test I use with family and friends. i am lucky to use two systems : Nikon [but not their cheap good-for-nothing lenses but the expensive stuff] and Leica. Develop a number of images 10x8 from both systems, put them on a table and ask them to pick-up the ones they like. In my case 7 out 10 pictures chosen were Leica [any lense !] and the chosen Nikon ones were taken mostly by the 180mmf2.8 or the 18mm f2.8.

When it comes to construction the Leica optics are generally a world apart....

[MikeMyers]

This evening I'll take some time to go over the images, and see what (if any) difference I notice in the images from Leica glass. In the meantime, here are a few thoughts on what's been posted up above:

 

First, I realize that the same image when taken from different lenses (or the same picture when shown on different television sets) may look "different". For most of what I do, as long as the final image looks good, I'm not too concerned with all that. If the image gets blurry, or distorted, or twisted, or full of digital artifacts, that's going to bother me, but I'm no less happy with my Nikon glass on my D3 than my Leica/Voigtlander glass on my M8. Both deliver plenty of performance, and it's hard (almost impossible) to find a difference that I can point out to someone.

 

Second, 'pgk' pointed out that there won't be much difference in 8x10 images (or those on the web) between Leica glass and others. What I do is mostly for the internet, and never more than two pages across in a magazine, and I highly doubt if anyone average person could tell what type of lens I might have used, from looking at the photo. For me, this may not be a concern. For someone making ten-foot wide prints, it's a different story. Also, 'pgk' pointed out that there may well be some small differences, but those are way down on my own list of what's important. I want straight lines to remain straight. I want out of focus areas to simply look "blurry". I want the sharp areas to be tack-sharp. And I want the image to remind me of what I saw in my mind as I took the photo. 'Pgk' also explained how he was more satisfied from images from the Leica than others, as he "produced as technically adept images as I was able to". I'm not sure about that - the Leica may have done a better job than Fuji, but chances are a Leica S2 would make the Leica M photos just as bad by comparison with what an S2 can achieve. I know what 'pgk' means, and I agree with what he says, but it just doesn't apply to me.

 

User 'markgay' said things that relate perfectly to me. Yes, the size and portability is enough to make me want to use the Leica camera. There is no question in my mind that these are the main reasons why I like the M series cameras. As to low light capability, in my mind that's becoming irrelevant. With Nikon (and others) developing sensors that go will soon reach well beyond 100,000 ISO, we'll be able to take photos in light that's not even bright enough for us to see what we're aiming the camera at. There will soon be no more need for expensive "fast" lenses (other than to get the limited depth of field these lenses provide). My D3 lets me shoot effortlessly at 6000 ISO, which meant I no longer needed my "fast" telephotos. Anyway, I have no problem with broadening the definition of "image quality". For me, it means the ability to make a good looking 8x10 print or post a full-screen image on the web. I think it's getting to where just about all currently available lenses (for real cameras) can do this. I can even get a pretty good image from my Nokia mobile phone!

 

People have posted here about how "fast" a Leica M is to use. I guess I'm not qualified to comment on that yet. I still find it to be slow (compared to my D3). With the D3 I just put the camera to my eye, and press the button. Almost always, the camera does what I want, instantly. If not, it's usually because I had the wrong settings. With the Leica, it takes more time to do the things before pressing the button. For this topic though, Leica lenses, that's all irrelevant. Other than for the lack of automation, the Leica lenses don't slow me down, and I like the ability to "guess" the focus by just positioning the focusing knob in the right position, something I can't do with other lenses and cameras.

 

I totally agree with 'pgk' about how modern automated lenses and cameras fail to teach a person about photography, but I figure these people have no interest in photography to start with - they just want pictures. A Leica, with any lens, is going to force a person to learn a bit more about photography, at least until they either understand what's going on, or sell it in disgust. They'll most likely never learn about depth of field, or how they can alter the effect of an image by changing the focal length. Heck, they'll probably eventually have 1000:1 digital zooms, for all that's worth...

 

User 'Per P." asked "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?" I'll not only admit that, but agree it's the single biggest reason why I'm using an M8. I've got several lenses both from Leica and from Voigtlander, and use the one with the focal length for what I want to shoot. I guess that's why I entered this discussion, as I see so many people talking about things that are relatively unimportant to me, rather than what I see as the "heart" of the M8, the camera body.

 

Finally, Bill and Varn Dewit summed up my feelings perfectly: "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..." I'm guilty of that. I do "enjoy using" My M8, even when I'm struggling to get it to do what I want. It's fun, exciting, a challenge, and a fantastic history. Even if I shouldn't, that's all part of what I find myself thinking. Then there's my old Nikon D2x. Old, beat up, not very exciting - but it gets me the photo I want with minimal effort, and has just about every tool built in that I could ever ask for. Both my M8 and my D2x are capable of getting me my "perfect" 8x10 image or full-screen display. (I think I trust my D2x more, but then again, I've had many more years to work with it.) Still, 95% of my photos could have been taken with a four-year-old $400 used Nikon D50 with the 'kit lens', and I think they'd look just as good.

[SJP]

SJP and xjr feel left out of the equation:D

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All are reasonalbly good. Unless you make your own prints with skill or you digitally process the files yourself with skill, any differences will be obscurred by poor craftsmanship.

 

A 100 ppi computer screen will show no differences except really gross ones.

 

I had lots of Pentax glass from 60`s and early 70`s. I could not make a black and white print to save my soul. Sure they "came out", but were missing something I could not place. Then a friend loaned me a Leica with vintage 60 lenses. The images just popped and I changed nothing else.

 

I now have some nikon digital stuff and the later Nikkor lenses are better than the few 60 vintage ones I have, and the latest AF are very good like the 100 2.8 micro VR. The detail really comes alive much like the 100 2.8 APO. Not as well made, and the lens will never live, but the image is very good.

 

The telling pic is to put Leica lenses on Nikon Digital full frame. The later APO are eye popping. The 1980 vintage slightly better than Nikon of the same vintage. Without a side by side print or experienced eye, a difference can not be seen.

 

All I can say is both Nikon and Leica have come a long way in 50 years. Leica is still ahead, but at enormous cost.

 

The last two Leica lenses I bought were the 50 2.8 latest version and the last 90 4.0. The negatives are outstanding, but you will never get it to show on a computer.

 

The new 50 1.4 is a lens to behold and whips Nikon wide open on the tests i did. Problem is weight and cost , each say 5x the leica over Nikon.

 

What you have to be careful of is Leica lenses are growing in volumn and are not the small gems they once were. Why I have purchased the last two that I did.

 

If you send out prints to anything less than a very good pro lab, Leica advantage will never be seen. That is the weak Link in the chain.

[redbaron]

I've posted images on a blog from my iPhone that people thought was from my Leica.

[MikeMyers]

SJP and xjr feel left out of the equation:D

 

Naw, you're right in there. I'm the one who thinks he's "left out", as I find it really difficult to relate to many of the comments here. To me, "better" no longer means what it used to.

 

 

I went to a model car race in Italy several years back with my new semi-pro Nikon DSLR and a Canon Pro1 for backup. The Nikon died after half an hour (a problem that model had, which has since been corrected) and my P&S Canon wouldn't get me the results I wanted. I borrowed a Nikon D50. It was just like a plastic toy, and the only thing useful about it to me was that I could use my Nikon lenses. Once I figured out how to "cheat" and get it to capture what I wanted, I got my images anyway. The magazine I sent them to just loved the images. I found myself wondering why I should buy cameras that cost thousands of dollars, when I can get the same images from a camera that sells for only a few hundred dollars.... ....which is why I posted this topic.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the advice. I learn new things here all the time, and what I think I'm finding out now is that for my purposes, there's no need for me to spend mega-thousands of dollars for lenses when the less expensive ones are "good enough" for what I need to do.

[wildlightphoto]

I've stopped making test photos to compare lenses, because field conditions vary tremendously from test conditions, and it's the photos I make in actual use are the ones I'm proud of, not the test photos.

 

IMHO the difference is as much handling and usability at the edge of the envelope as it is static measurements. Does the equipment allow me to work quickly, or does it get in my way? Do I have to be mindful of flare-prone conditions, or straight lines, or harsh bokeh, or optimum apertures, or not?

 

In actual use it's impossible for me to make A-B comparisons because a) real-world conditions are rarely the same from one moment to the next, and because if I try to make comparison photos it often turns in to A vs (nothing) because the other equipment's poorer ergonomic design made the tool less responsive and I missed the photo entirely.

 

IMHO it's unwise to paint a brand with too a broad brush. I prefer comparisons of specific models of lenses for particular purposes rather than making generalized statements about brands. Some Leica lenses work well for me, some don't.

 

What keeps me using Leica (R in my case) is that the majority of the lenses that work well for me (optically and ergonomically) have turned out to be Leica lenses. YMMV.

[MikeMyers]

In actual use it's impossible for me to make A-B comparisons because a) real-world conditions are rarely the same from one moment to the next, and because if I try to make comparison photos it often turns in to A vs (nothing) because the other equipment's poorer ergonomic design made the tool less responsive and I missed the photo entirely.

 

 

To wildlightphoto, that makes sense to me. I don't usually go out to shoot comparisons either, as I'm usually intent on photographing something, whatever it may be, rather than any kind of a "test".

 

Here's a web page with a small collection of my non-racing photos:

Flickr: michaeljessemyers' Photostream

These were taken with whatever camera I had with me at the time, ranging from a Nokia n95 mobile up to a Nikon DSLR. I didn't have my Leica yet, so none of those photos are there (yet). I'm heading back to Asia in May, and this time I want to bring my M8 (good quality gear in a small and light package that doesn't look *expensive*). I also plan to do some IR photography there, which nobody else seems to be doing yet.

 

I haven't really had problems yet with " the other equipment's poorer ergonomic design" but I've certainly had problems with the limitations of the equipment. My Canon P&S camera is so slow to react (lag time) that I usually don't get what I want. My Nikon's size and bulk make it too "big" and "noticeable" to carry around. My Nokia can get good photos if I do everything perfectly, but sometimes I can't take the time to do so, and then the Nokia photos look like awful.

 

As to lenses, a Leica f/1 lens would look way too big, while the Voigtlander lenses are small and insignificant. I expect most people to ignore me when I'm shooting with the Leica, as much as they now do when I shoot with a P&S. Using the Nikon on the other hand is too "in your face", and people end up reacting to the camera, not ignoring me.

[Manolo Laguillo]

I decided to buy an M8 + Leica lenses after looking last november at some incredibly beautiful A3 inkjet color prints a friend of mine showed to me, without telling me at the beginning their origin. Only after asking he said they were made from M8 files.

 

I trust my eye because I am a professional photographer since 1977, used to the quality of 4x5 and 8x10, formats which I routenily employed for decades (6x7, 6x9 and 6x12cm were small for me!) In the early 80's I began printing with platinum and palladium, and I was a very good 'silver printer'. To say it shortly: I know very deeply the craft of photography, and know how to use photography to express myself, my eye is a trained one.

 

After saying all this (forgive me for speaking so much about myself) I can assure you that those M8 prints, being digital in origin, reminded me of the old silver mood. I jumped to digital nearly 10 years ago, and have been doing inkjet prints (A3, A2 and sometimes much bigger) from 5D files with great satisfaction. But those A3 prints I saw last november had a different quality, and the glass is responsible for it.

 

Via the internet probably it will be impossible to show the subtle differences we are talking about, differences invisible to the outsider's eye, but that are there, on print. As I show my work as prints, for me those differences matter.

 

Regarding the rude commentary of your instructor about the equipment, we should not forget the feeling of the Leica when photographing: that small camera, the rangefinder, everything manual, the noiseless shutter... Perhaps he/she was envious!

A camera is a tool, of course, but ask a pro carpenter what tools he/she prefers? The expensive ones, designed for professional use (hard work resilience, reliability, ergonomical, etc), or the cheap ones, only good for an occasional use?

[SJP]

Blind test report

 

I tried to guess Leica or rest of the world on the 24 images posted by giordano only using the preview screen on the right.

 

I was right 17x out of 24. No pixel peeping or anything else involved, just did it "feel like" a Leica picture at a first glance. If there was no difference I should have gotten about 12 right.

 

So my conclusion is that you can see the difference on screen from a small jpeg, but if you ask me what exactly the difference is I would be hard pressed to tell you.

Update after some feedback from John/giordano via PM additional Leica pictures were identified that I hadn't counted as such initially (film i.e. no info via exif so I assumed "not leica"). My actual score was 20 out of 24 correct identification of "Leica" vs. "no Leica". Whether this justifies the price difference etc. is another matter. But from this I conclude that you can see a clear difference even on a computer monitor without pixel peeping and using ca. A6 size sRGB jpeg images.

[k-hawinkler]

Update after some feedback from John/giordano via PM additional Leica pictures were identified that I hadn't counted as such initially (film i.e. no info via exif so I assumed "not leica"). My actual score was 20 out of 24 correct identification of "Leica" vs. "no Leica". Whether this justifies the price difference etc. is another matter. But from this I conclude that you can see a clear difference even on a computer monitor without pixel peeping and using ca. A6 size sRGB jpeg images.

 

Stephen,

 

Impressive. What were the tell tale signs that let you recognize the Leica images?

 

K-H.

[ddp]

Well....Leica DOES have some unique glass that in some cases you won't find in other lineups. As one who shoots Nikon D3s & D3 bodies along with some very good Nikon glass, as well as film & digital Leica M's - I can certainly say that some Nikkors such as the 85/1.4 and 135/2 really produce nice images when wide open. With the M kit, I am shooting with a 35/1.4 & Noctilux. Nikon does not have a modern equivalent to Leica's 35/1.4, and they certainly don't make a 50/1.0. But Nikon has certainly come a long way with their current lens design as was mentioned above - even their newer zooms perform quite well.

 

Personally, I don't make direct comparisons. I like my Leica glass for the way it performs for me and how it suits my own style. I'll switch between Nikon & Leica systems at a wedding depending on what look I am going after. Yes, new prices on the Leica glass are hideously expensive compared to almost anything else out there. Even used, it's a still a bit crazy. But one of the reasons I was drawn to the M system was the glass, and the somewhat stealth factor of the camera.

 

I think there's a subtlety in the files from the Leica glass...shadow detail & contrast especially in more challenging light. I'm not sure apart from the light table or enlarged prints that you're going to see it right off the bat. Of course, I could simply be trying to convince myself that after all this time I still feel the need to justify owning some of this stuff.

[MikeMyers]

...Regarding the rude commentary of your instructor about the equipment, we should not forget the feeling of the Leica when photographing: that small camera, the rangefinder, everything manual, the noiseless shutter... Perhaps he/she was envious!

A camera is a tool, of course, but ask a pro carpenter what tools he/she prefers? The expensive ones, designed for professional use (hard work resilience, reliability, ergonomical, etc), or the cheap ones, only good for an occasional use?

 

 

You're right that what the instructor said could be considered "rude", but he had a purpose, and just like a drill instructor for civilians trying to become marines, he felt it was important to get rid of some of my ideas that he considered wrong.

 

Ever since then, I've thought he did the right thing, and at the time, I did think the Leica was something "special" - very much so! Nowadays I like my Leica just as much as way back then, but it's not the same. It's more like my D3 - as I find out how to use the durn thing better, it becomes an extension of me, and like a computer, it helps me get things done better and faster. I don't think I like it so much because it's a Leica - rather, I like it so much because it enables me to do many things better than I can with other types of cameras. At the same time, there are many things I know it can't do very well.

[MikeMyers]

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.

 

 

Very nice images! If I was supposed to be able to tell which camera took which photo, I failed miserably.

 

Looking over your images, if I was lucky enough to be in the same places you were, and if I had the talent you've got to photograph the images, the only way I'm going to answer my own questions would be to photograph the same scenes with two cameras, with lenses of similar focal length. Maybe I can try that tomorrow, shooting a scenic view with a 50mm lens, first on my M8 and then on my Nikon D2x. I strongly doubt I'll see a big difference, but who knows, maybe I'll find I'm wrong about all this.

[FiZZ]

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.)

 

 

To answer the first part of your question, yes, there is a difference between Leica glass and other brands, especially wide open. There was a thread, I think it still here in one of the back pages, about a trial that was done with 20+ 50mm lenses. These ranged from Jupiters, to Leicas, Zeiss, Canons, and Nikons. You can clearly tell the difference between the lenses, and the Leica results popped out the most.

 

Talking about the 0.95 50mm, Canon was the first brand to go that fast, but the 0.95 they made wasn't very practical in low light as wide open it was too soft, rendered colours incorrectly, and lacked a lot of contrast. The Nocti, however, was the opposite. The focal plane was sharp (it's not just about focusing correctly), the colours looked realistic and consistent, and there was plenty of contrast. Except for the narrow DoF, I found the results almost consistent with the 2.0 50mm.

 

Now when it comes to choosing, that depends on your usage. I know photographers who shoot only in daylight, so bokeh isn't that important to them as in most of their pictures the depth of field is too wide to get any OOF that is noticeable. In that particular case, a Leica lens wouldn't really make a big difference.

 

One word that Leica bokeh is described with is creamy smooth. This is the result of two factors, their glass manufacturing process, and the shape of their lens aperture blades. Anyone can try this test, grab a lens and stop down the blades while looking through it, and you'll notice that at almost every stop the shape is circular, but without a consistent edge. Other lenses, like my Nikon 28 and 50, have straight edge blades, and give me either a hexagon or a nonagon. This makes a difference at medium apertures.

[k-hawinkler]

To answer the first part of your question, yes, there is a difference between Leica glass and other brands, especially wide open. There was a thread, I think it still here in one of the back pages, about a trial that was done with 20+ 50mm lenses. These ranged from Jupiters, to Leicas, Zeiss, Canons, and Nikons. You can clearly tell the difference between the lenses, and the Leica results popped out the most.

 

Talking about the 0.95 50mm, Canon was the first brand to go that fast, but the 0.95 they made wasn't very practical in low light as wide open it was too soft, rendered colours incorrectly, and lacked a lot of contrast. The Nocti, however, was the opposite. The focal plane was sharp (it's not just about focusing correctly), the colours looked realistic and consistent, and there was plenty of contrast. Except for the narrow DoF, I found the results almost consistent with the 2.0 50mm.

 

Now when it comes to choosing, that depends on your usage. I know photographers who shoot only in daylight, so bokeh isn't that important to them as in most of their pictures the depth of field is too wide to get any OOF that is noticeable. In that particular case, a Leica lens wouldn't really make a big difference.

 

One word that Leica bokeh is described with is creamy smooth. This is the result of two factors, their glass manufacturing process, and the shape of their lens aperture blades. Anyone can try this test, grab a lens and stop down the blades while looking through it, and you'll notice that at almost every stop the shape is circular, but without a consistent edge. Other lenses, like my Nikon 28 and 50, have straight edge blades, and give me either a hexagon or a nonagon. This makes a difference at medium apertures.

 

May be you refer to these links?

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/118931-32-50mm-rf-lenses-shot-wide.html#post1262814

50mm RF lenses Shot Wide Open using M9 - ClubSNAP Photography Forums

 

K-H.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[giordano]

Very nice images! If I was supposed to be able to tell which camera took which photo, I failed miserably.

 

Looking over your images, if I was lucky enough to be in the same places you were, and if I had the talent you've got to photograph the images, the only way I'm going to answer my own questions would be to photograph the same scenes with two cameras, with lenses of similar focal length. Maybe I can try that tomorrow, shooting a scenic view with a 50mm lens, first on my M8 and then on my Nikon D2x. I strongly doubt I'll see a big difference, but who knows, maybe I'll find I'm wrong about all this.

 

Thanks for the kind words, Mike. Best of all would be to use a F to M adapter so that both the lenses are shining on the same sensor. I'll try that myself if my blasted earache ever lets up.