How can small Leica lenses make great pictures?

[devermb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To the patient forum user:

 

I have yet another basic question about Leica cameras before I buy anyting that will test the patience of the veteran, but it's good to ask basic questions so one can go to the more complicated ones: conventional wisdom suggests that the physically broader or wider or larger the lens is the more light and image can come through it to take the picture. However, Leica M lenses are small. How then do they contribute to such good pictures: quality of the glass, perhaps?

[wildlightphoto]

To the patient forum user:

 

I have yet another basic question about Leica cameras before I buy anyting that will test the patience of the veteran, but it's good to ask basic questions so one can go to the more complicated ones: conventional wisdom suggests that the physically broader or wider or larger the lens is the more light and image can come through it to take the picture. However, Leica M lenses are small. How then do they contribute to such good pictures: quality of the glass, perhaps?

 

I could write something about conventional wisdom, but a more reasonable answer is that the design of most M lenses involves technologies and glass types that are more expensive to produce but allow smaller physical size (aspherical surfaces is one example) and often require tighter manufacturing tolerances or more costly manufacturing techniques. One of the benefits of these design and manufacturing techniques is that the number of glass elements can often be reduced, which has size/weight benefits as well as reducing the number of internal reflections. Perhaps conventional wisdom only applies to conventional design and construction.

[antistatic]

It's magic. No other lenses have it

[Sailronin]

Another very simple explanation is that due to the rangefinder design the lens does not need to be designed with room for a mirror to lift out of the way like an SLR/DSLR, thus allowing a less complicated optical design for the same focal length and aperture. An example being the Leica R (SLR) series lenses are not (much) smaller than Nikon or other SLR lenses of the same focal length and speed.

[tobey bilek]

all of what Doug told you with the addition that lenses can be made smaller if they do not have to to be retro focus, ie reverse telephoto, to clear a mirror path because a M camera does not have a swing mirror.

 

Leica gave up on the true wie angle designs for M cameras in the 1980`s for various reasons and the wide angles have become very large in comparison to past designs, but not as large as if they were for a reflex camera.

 

If you want smaller lenses, hut down some older products. My standard kit is 35 2.0 version 4, 50 & 90 collapsible last versions, not fast, but small and sharp. If I know I am heading to a dark venue, the kit will change.

[lct]

...conventional wisdom suggests that the physically broader or wider or larger the lens is the more light and image can come through it to take the picture...

In matter of lenses, bigger is not always better. Some Zuiko lenses are amongst the best for instance and are very small though. Here the Zuiko 28/2 and the Cron 28. The Zuiko 21/2 could well be smaller or very close to the Elmarit 21/2.8 as well.

 

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Remember, a lot of what you get in current SLR designs is there to do something other than make pictures. Lenses get bigger when you add focusing motors. Lenses get bigger when you add image stabilization. (Compare performance of the 12-24, 14-24, 17-35 Nikkors with that of the 16-35, for example. The last is much larger, a stop slower, and has lesser performance except insofar as it has IS. My understanding is based on limited reviews and no experience with the latter two.)

 

Read Erwin Puts.

 

Read the "Form Follows Format" article in LFI 3/2006, pp 40-47.

[!Nomad64]

Another possible explanation is that the barrels of M lenses do not have to include transmission leverages/gears, motors, electrical contacts, etc. hence no need for extra bulk around the glass.

If one objects that Zeiss ZM lenses might be bigger than Leica counterparts, pls bear in mind that for the sake of cost reductions all Zeiss barrels are almost sized the same barring the 85, therefore in certain cases there is a lot of barrel around tiny lenses.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[wilfredo]

Pure Magic. Big Leica lenses also make great pictures.

[earleygallery]

Try a 5cm 3.5 Elmar, truly the product of sorcery!

[Guest lll]

A poor minimum focusing distance of 70 - 100cm does not aquire a long focusing helicoloid and an aperture ring in the front end of the lens does not need internal transmissions, not to mention the lack of any auto diaphragm mechanics.

[SJP]

The reason is that Leica actually understands optics, they think and breathe optics, it is their vocation, a hobby, something they are passionate about. Moreover Leica is not just another company Barnack, Berek and whole pile of other optics related physicists worked at Leica. If the lens is too big then the design sucks, and Leica does not want to do that.

 

Another reason is that they do not care too much about price, turnover and profit, which is slightly unusual in the current world. Quality is first, price second, turnover is useful. Profit is possible but not expected:D

[giordano]

The reason is that Leica actually understands optics, they think and breathe optics, it is their vocation, a hobby, something they are passionate about. Moreover Leica is not just another company Barnack, Berek and whole pile of other optics related physicists worked at Leica.

 

This may be true of Leica, but the way you say it implies that other lens-makers don't really understand optics and don't share the passion.

 

Read some of the articles here and you'll find every bit as much passion and understanding: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights. Everything about lens design is a matter of compromise that boils down to trading off cost, performance and size, and different companies simply make different compromises. I can't find a citation, but Nikon designers have said in the past that they could match Leica designs if they wanted to, but only at Leica prices.

[wizard]

In my view, the initial question is somewhat misleading: Leica lenses are not that small, there are smaller lenses on the market, e.g. some of the CV lenses. Whether those are as good as Leica lenses is another question (they are not btw, but they are not bad either). In the end Leica will always try to make a given lens as compact as possible, without however sacrificing optical and mechanical quality. Compared to SLR/DSLR lenses, Leica M-lenses are small, but then Leica R-lenses are bigger than their M counterparts, too.

 

All that said, Leica without any doubt has vast knowledge in constructing lenses and in finely balancing the many different parameters needed to produce a first class lens.

 

Andy

[SJP]

This may be true of Leica, but the way you say it implies that other lens-makers don't really understand optics and don't share the passion.

 

Read some of the articles here and you'll find every bit as much passion and understanding: Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights. Everything about lens design is a matter of compromise that boils down to trading off cost, performance and size, and different companies simply make different compromises. I can't find a citation, but Nikon designers have said in the past that they could match Leica designs if they wanted to, but only at Leica prices.

True I expect. I recall someone mentioning that Panasonic engineers have a yearly outing to Leica to get a "masterclass on optics" & usually leave somewhat humbled. The difference is mainly that Leica have been in the high end lens design business for years which gives them an advantage + they are not limited by the management to keep the lenses at a low cost for manufacturing.

 

Designing a decent quility lens at low cost is probably just as difficult in terms of optical engineering - possible even more so. But of course Leica also does this for the Panaleicas.

[tobey bilek]

SJP is correct, Nikon could make better lenses at a higher price. Leica can no longer keep charging a super premium for something that is no longer way better than Nikon.

Nikon is the the Ford or Chevrolet brand and it gets you there, perhaps without the panach, but you get there or close enough considering the price.

 

Leicas busines model over the years have shrunk their market to nearly unsustainable levels. With lower and lower volumn, come higher unit prices, resulting in even lower volumn. A downward spiral.

 

I bought all the available M lenses in the 1980`s. They cost 3 to 7 hundred. The 90 2.0 was 450. The 21 was 650. I think todays pricing is more out of line with what people can afford.

 

Looks to me their solution is medium format at a price nobody but sucessful pros can invest into. Most people can not but a $30,000 car let alone camera.

 

Then you have the obsolence factor. Batteries will become unavailable, electronices will fail with no replacements. This is enough to drive a repaiman crazy. At least in the old days, one could make a part or find a donor camera. It is no longer a camera made to last decades.

[wizard]

Nikon is the the Ford or Chevrolet brand and it gets you there, perhaps without the panach, but you get there or close enough considering the price.

 

Did I miss something or was it not Chevrolet a.k.a. GM that had to be saved using loads of taxpayers money?

 

Andy

[redbaron]

Leica can no longer keep charging a super premium for something that is no longer way better than Nikon.

 

Really? Who made you the boss?

[giordano]

The difference is mainly that Leica have been in the high end lens design business for years which gives them an advantage.

 

True enough. Nikon have a mere 60 years experience and have never really penetrated the professional market.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SJP]

True enough. Nikon have a mere 60 years experience and have never really penetrated the professional market.

Nikon lenses are fine, I have a FM2 and a F3 and a few Nikkor lenses. I was happy enough with them until the fateful moment that I borrowed the M2 + summaron 35/2.8 from work to see if it was still OK as a "fun collectors item like thing". BIG mistake.

 

I always thought my Olympus XA had a really good lens .... not.

 

Is Leica stuff worth the 10x higher price? That is a different issue. For me yes because the lenses hardly depraciate in value - in fact often the contrary. So Leica stuff in fact is cheap if you can afford missing the capital. Admittedly my M8 has depreciated in value quite a bit, but the increased value of my lenses has compensated rather well, annual rate over the whole set of stuff is about 4% increase in value, which covers the insurance premium.

 

No-one is saying Nikon or anyone else are making bad lenses or are incapable of copying what Leica is turning out - but they don't want to, they are living in a different business model.

 

Edit: some time ago there was a poll and the top three lens designers by common consent were Zeiss, Leica and Hasselblad (I forget the order).