Just curious

[Guest Chris M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is the better deal? what I'm trying to understand is why someone would by an M camera or a M8 or M9 and then use some canon glass or any other glass except for Leica glass, I can see people doing the opposite, with going with Leica glass on say there contax or canon camera's, RD1's etc.. too get the Leica draw, but the other way around? I'm not so sure about the benifits of a leica body of any type with out leica glass attached to it. Please voice your opinions. I'm curious.

 

best, chris m.

[dpattinson]

Probably because they like the character of the other brand lens, and they are usually much cheaper so not that much to outlay to get a different look.

 

Personally, I'm not entirely sure why someone would pay £4000 to get the look of a Noctilux when they could get a 50 lux asph for less than half that and just shoot at 320iso... but then I'm not that enamored of the noct look.

[Guest Chris M]

Probably because they like the character of the other brand lens, and they are usually much cheaper so not that much to outlay to get a different look.

 

Personally, I'm not entirely sure why someone would pay £4000 to get the look of a Noctilux when they could get a 50 lux asph for less than half that and just shoot at 320iso... but then I'm not that enamored of the noct look.

 

Thats my point, I just don't get it:confused: Why someone would pay allot more money$$$ for a Leica body, to get the same draw from there canon or what ever lens, that will (ONLY) work with an expensive $$$ (lens adaptor) on the (generally speaking) more expensive leica body's that the other branded lens Canon, contax ,and carl zeiss- well maybe carl Zeiss? but were not even really designed fore? WHY why why.

Just use it on the lens brand body, thats what it was designed for, and remember it not the (world renowned) Leica glass. People want leica glass on everything? I would think. Maybe I'm wrong? who knows?

 

chris m

[dpattinson]

There are no Canon, Nikon or Zeiss digital rangefinder cameras to use those non-leica lenses on. Even if there were, the main reason for using a RF body is because you like the way it works, not because the image quality is somehow better*. I can quite happily imagine preferring to use a Leica body for the handling but being quite OK with the results from a Zeiss lens.

 

* - i know we could argue about the better quality for a long time, but I just don't buy that the RF body - especially the film ones, results in a significantly better image quality except inasmuch as the method of use facilitates getting a certain kind of shot (easier manual focus of wide lenses for example).

[ho_co]

Chris--

They don't look at it as we do.

 

I worked for Leica for a decade and once came across a man using a Soligor lens on his Leicaflex. He explained that so far as he was concerned the camera with the name "Leica" was the prize, the goal, the showy thing, the thing worth having. He just made snapshots with it, he explained, and the quality of the lens didn't matter.

 

But there are other reasons. I bought a Voigtländer 12mm Heliar for use on the M8 because its field of view (16mm equivalent) let me duplicate the widest lens Leica makes for full-frame cameras, viz 16mm in the WATE. There's a certain logic there, I think.

 

In addition, Erwin Puts feels some Zeiss lenses are as good as or even better than their Leica counterparts. (He definitely doesn't feel that way about the Voigtländers.)

 

And of course, there's always just having something to talk about over a beer...

[Guest Chris M]

There are no Canon, Nikon or Zeiss digital rangefinder cameras to use those non-leica lenses on. Even if there were, the main reason for using a RF body is because you like the way it works, not because the image quality is somehow better*. I can quite happily imagine preferring to use a Leica body for the handling but being quite OK with the results from a Zeiss lens.

 

* - i know we could argue about the better quality for a long time, but I just don't buy that the RF body - especially the film ones, results in a significantly better image quality except inasmuch as the method of use facilitates getting a certain kind of shot (easier manual focus of wide lenses for example).

 

I don't know if your understanding what I'm asking? or saying, this is not about arguing either, I simply want too know why some one would go through all that trouble when they simply could just use a canon body with a canon lens (not an expensive leica body) such as there Leica film body's like the r6's R8 and R9 with an adaptor or the M8's and M9's w/ canon adaptor with canon lens (which is discussed some where here in this forum), I would think in some cases that the canon body's would deliver a better IQ with a leica lens then a leica body with a canon lens, we're talking Canon now. Nothing else.

 

 

 

best.......chris m.

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't know if your understanding what I'm asking? (...) I simply want too know why some one would go through all that trouble when they simply could just use a canon body (...)

 

He said that some people prefer they way cameras with RF (Rangefinders) work. Working with an RF camera can be quite different from working with - say - an SLR. Hence, they might not find Canons attractive for the simple reason that Canon does not sell any RF cameras.

 

As far as I can see, that's an answer to your first question.

[dpattinson]

I don't know if your understanding what I'm asking? or saying, this is not about arguing either, I simply want too know why some one would go through all that trouble when they simply could just use a canon body with a canon lens (not an expensive leica body) such as there Leica film body's like the r6's R8 and R9 with an adaptor or the M8's and M9's w/ canon adaptor with canon lens (which is discussed some where here in this forum), I would think in some cases that the canon body's would deliver a better IQ with a leica lens then a leica body with a canon lens, we're talking Canon now. Nothing else.

 

 

 

best.......chris m.

 

OK, I also have no idea why anyone would want to use a Canon SLR lens on an M8 or M9, except possibly just to show that it could be done. It seems daft to me, but I guess if you already own the M8/9 and the Canon lenses, the adapter can't be too expensive. I can imagine more productive ways to use my M8 than farting about with SLR lenses. Having said that - I feel exactly the same way about using Leica SLR lenses on the M8/9

 

I thought you were talking about the Canon rangefinder lenses, which can be mounted on the Leica M cameras and used the same as a Leica M lens (with a LTM to bayonet adapter). Those lenses (along with rangefinder lenses from Nikon, Zeiss and other makers) can be used just fine with M cameras and many people do like the results.

 

I don't think there are very many people using Canon lenses on Leica bodies. The vast majority of people who are mixing those brands are shooting their Leica R lenses on Canon DSLR bodies - for the simple reason that Leica don't make a DSLR (yes - I know you can still get DMR... I don't think it counts). That also seems quite sensible to me

[andybarton]

The Canon lenses that people put onto M cameras were designed to fit onto Leica bodies in the first place. I have never heard of anyone fitting a modern Canon lens onto an M body.

 

I am one of the people who fit Leica lenses onto a third party body (Nikon on my case). I do that because the difference in quality between the Nikon glass and the Leica glass is obvious. AND I was waiting for an R10...

[christer]

I have just bought an UNEXPENSIVE, SMALL and LIGHT Voigtländer 21 mm f/4.

 

Previously I had an EXPENSIVE, HUGE and HEAVY Leica 21mm ASPH.

 

The reasons for the change are in CAPS.

[pgk]

I have never heard of anyone fitting a modern Canon lens onto an M body.

Although it might be technically possible, because there is no aperture control on the lens this would be a pointless exercise as any lens could only be used a full aperture where it would be most difficult to guestimate focus.

 

Some older type (not EF) Canon SLR lenses are usable on M's - there is a post in the M8 forum about an old fisheye being used for example - but this is only really of limited interest in specialist cases and where no Leica equivalent has been made.

[250swb]

Doesn't this come down to an approach to photography where you have to use the best lens, at the best aperture, on the best body, and compose the photograph in a prescribed way that meets 'the rules', such as the rule of thirds, or rules of peer pressure? In such a situation the lens and camera and the process take precedence in image making. Its good for camera clubs that need to establish criteria for judging images.

 

On the other hand, there are people who consider the lens and body to be a tool to translate their idea's, and if a lens exhibits a character that doesn't meet the Leica standard it doesn't matter, the image the concept and the message take precedence. Of course a Leica lens could be the best tool for translating the photograpers ideas, or it could just be the lens thats on the camera at the time. But either way its a different approach to image making where ultimate sharpness, smooth bokeh, lack of distortion, etc. aren't as important as embracing the percieved faults in lenses that offer some other expressive character, perhaps vignetting. And there is nothing to say you can't add grain, vignetting, or do anything else in post processing or printing that theoretically spoils the intrinsic high quality of an M9 and a Leica lens, if it suits your eye and brain do it.

 

So I think in many cases a non-Leica lens has been chosen because the photographer has given thought to the imaging making process and isn't worried about mis-guided peer pressure based on 'mine is sharper than yours' or similar considerations. Instead expression is the key, and the overall handling of the camera is what gets you there.

 

Steve

[bill]

So I think in many cases a non-Leica lens has been chosen because the photographer has given thought to the imaging making process and isn't worried about mis-guided peer pressure based on 'mine is sharper than yours' or similar considerations. Instead expression is the key, and the overall handling of the camera is what gets you there.

 

Spot-on.

 

In M and LTM mount alone I have three Leica 50mms (5cm Nickel Elmar, DR Summicron and Elmar-M) One CV (2.5) and one Canon (1.2). They each have a different rendition. If I: a) regarded razor sharpness as the only fruit, had more money than sense and c) actually gave a flying fart about what people think I would probably chop them all in for a current Summilux (assuming I could find one). But then I would not only give up a whole palette of different renditions, but also different handling characteristics and benefits in terms of size, collapsibility, etc.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[250swb]

Ditto my love affair with a 5cm Summitar at the moment Bill. Soft wide open, weird squirrely bokeh, a bit of vignetting, lovely low contrast, its 'says' something totally different to a Summicron. I have a 40mm CV Nokton, horrible lens in 'normal' circumstances, but sublime when its used at its supposedly 'worst' settings.

 

Steve

[pgk]

If I .... actually gave a flying fart about what people think I would probably chop them all in for a current Summilux (assuming I could find one).

In all honesty I have never had anyone comment or even stop to consider the lenses on my cameras. Several have been 'impressed' by the fact that one of the cameras I use is a Leica, but only because they regard Leica as a real statement of quality, others preferred the 1DS cameras I've got rid of probably because they were big (and heavy which is partly why they went). These days so few people actually know about/understand/appreciate why anyone would use a rangefinder that the chances of meeting someone who does notice both camera and lens is, I would say, fairly remote. This suits me fine!

 

"Composing a photograph in a 'prescribed' way" is a very apt way of putting the convergent and ultimately boring route being taken by may photographers these days and I must remember this as a useful description.

[giordano]

Although it might be technically possible, because there is no aperture control on the lens this would be a pointless exercise as any lens could only be used a full aperture where it would be most difficult to guestimate focus.

 

Some older type (not EF) Canon SLR lenses are usable on M's - there is a post in the M8 forum about an old fisheye being used for example - but this is only really of limited interest in specialist cases and where no Leica equivalent has been made.

 

The film-to-flange distance on Leica SLRs is longer than on Nikon or Canons, so Leica R lenses can be adapted to the latter bodies while the latter lenses cannot* be adapted to Leica bodies.

 

* except perhaps for some old, none-wideangle lenses after major surgery.

[stunsworth]

Not everyone wants - or is able - to pay Leica prices for a seldom used focal length.

[bill]

Ditto my love affair with a 5cm Summitar at the moment Bill. Soft wide open, weird squirrely bokeh, a bit of vignetting, lovely low contrast, its 'says' something totally different to a Summicron.

 

...you mean like this...?

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

This is the Canon I mentioned earlier.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[kkochheiser]

Wow Bill! Thanks for posting that picture.

 

Kent

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wparsonsgisnet]

I agree about Leica glass, prefering it in most cases.

 

However I do own a CV 15. I just can't justify the price for this focal length that gets used so seldom. I don't particularly like the lens, but it works just fine for the rare interior shot I need.