Timmyjoe Posted April 26, 2011 Share #1 Posted April 26, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Years ago, before digital, I always noticed that 35mm negatives shot with my 50mm Summilux printed very well, even when enlarged to 16x20, especially when compared to negatives shot with any of my Nikon or Canon lenses (even FD Canon L lenses). Was out shooting today with the M8.2 and a 35mm cron asph, trying to capture a storm moving in. The first image below shows the whole picture of what I was shooting and you may notice a dust spec in the sky. I figured I needed to clean the sensor again. The second image shows a white box around the dust spec. The third image shows what the dust spec actually was. We live twenty-two miles from the airport. And that plane had to be thousands of feet up in the air at that point. It never ceases to amaze me the detail Leica lenses can capture. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/150232-why-leica-lenses-cost-so-much/?do=findComment&comment=1656435'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Hi Timmyjoe, Take a look here Why Leica lenses cost so much. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ismon Posted April 26, 2011 Share #2 Posted April 26, 2011 Dittos Tim, What first intrigued me about Leica lenses is that they could all see so much better than I could. The detail is often quite astounding. High resolution films and a massive tripod can help to mimic large format results. Prints to 8x12 feet become possible--even with Elmars! I have "saved" a small fortune by not duplicating my gear in multiple formats, only to spend it all on Leicas. Nifty to know that not all "dust" is dust. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmyjoe Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted April 26, 2011 Dittos Tim,What first intrigued me about Leica lenses is that they could all see so much better than I could. Hey Bill, at 54, I can really relate to that statement. There's no way I saw that plane in the sky. And what's really amazing is that shot was hand held, no tripod. It was a pretty fast shutter speed. But the resolving power of those lenses is just amazing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janki Posted April 26, 2011 Share #4 Posted April 26, 2011 Hi Tim ! Great pictures. It is a very interesting phenomenon that you show us here. I still shoot mostly with film. If my Nikon Cool Scanner does not remove such "scratching" using the very good automatic dust remover this scanner has, I understand that the Leica lens must have caught something I could not see with my own eye. Very often it turns out to be just a bird or a plane of any kind. Very good !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
janki Posted April 26, 2011 Share #5 Posted April 26, 2011 When I recently bought myself a new quad-core Mac, it was natural to install Photoshop Elements 9 in the process. Even this cheap image-processing program has really enormous possibilities for image manipulation and tinkering. I'm completely unskilled and have only just begun to test all possibilities. I am in a very early stage. Here I have "lubricated together" two black and white images. Poor craftsmanship. It is very easy to see. These two pictures are taken with a Minolta Rokkor 200mm lens in late August 1980. I had two, separately, almost completely meaningless images. Nevertheless, together these images show a true situation of an Israeli Phantom F4 in 60-degree angle, dive-bombing PLO weapons positions in the area Nabatiye / Litani-river in South Lebanon. The distance from where I stand is probably around 10 km (0.62 miles). It is possible to see the missile protection, “flare”, which the Phantom releases behind. But otherwise, the resolution is very bad, and the plane "withstand" absolutely not to be enlarged. Compared with your photos Tim, and the enlargement of "your " aircraft, it just shows even more clearly how good Leica's lenses actually are. Notice also the soldiers on the rooftops that monitor the situation. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/150232-why-leica-lenses-cost-so-much/?do=findComment&comment=1656684'>More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted April 27, 2011 Share #6 Posted April 27, 2011 Hi Tim, Thanks. If you don't mind I have a couple more examples. The first is displayed here, M9+TE135/4: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/168102-heading-north.html The other example is this one, M9+APO 75/2 (full size image here 2011.02.10 Dust Specs or Else in the Sky? - winklers' Photos) 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! In either case I didn't see the birds in the sky when I took the images. Pretty amazing camera and lens performance IMHO. Best, K-H. Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! In either case I didn't see the birds in the sky when I took the images. Pretty amazing camera and lens performance IMHO. Best, K-H. ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/150232-why-leica-lenses-cost-so-much/?do=findComment&comment=1656691'>More sharing options...
sbelyaev Posted April 27, 2011 Share #7 Posted April 27, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Any decent lens/camera combo can do that. Oly DSLR + Oly ZOOM lens set at 25mm ( the plane was , i guess, 4-5 miles away) One can see the wheels and even the propeller. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/150232-why-leica-lenses-cost-so-much/?do=findComment&comment=1656693'>More sharing options...
Anasebi Posted April 27, 2011 Share #8 Posted April 27, 2011 amen. I only use Voigtlander lenses currently and even the one I consider the softest of the lot; the Nokton 35mm f1.4 still sharpens up a few clicks. Its 40mm twin I also own stays sharper to the center down to F/1.4 and it cost me a total of $390 shipped brand new. Still seems around that price. If I was rolling in money I would likely replace every lens with its Leica equivalent, but not because I'm hurting at all as is, just to get that extra uniformity wide open and the floating elements that banish back focus in close ups. Though even then I wonder if I would bother as I can shove six CV lenses where one 'lux lenses and a few 'crons would struggle to fit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted April 27, 2011 Share #9 Posted April 27, 2011 Hi Hold on all CV lenses are crap, fall apart, etc. I got mine 2nd hand and all are cheap, one was cheaper than a current leica lens hood... You dont need to clean the optics, toss them in trash and buy another. Never shoot wide open so never notice any difference. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ismon Posted April 27, 2011 Share #10 Posted April 27, 2011 As a callow youth, I once strayed and purchased a brand new (non-Leitz) 200 mm lens. After a month of disappointing images, I traded it back to the same dealer (losing HALF its value) for a scruffy, old 200mm F/4.5 Telyt. The difference was enlightening. I used that old Telyt for a dozen years, selling it for TWICE what I had paid--and bought a bigger Telyt. I had learned my lesson. Ever wonder why there is still such an active market for old Leica lenses? They are well worth the investment, and appreciate in value! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted April 27, 2011 Share #11 Posted April 27, 2011 I agree that most Leica lenses are spectacular both in optics and mechanics, and worth a significant premium over most others. However, a 50 Summicron that cost roughly $1000 new 5 years ago performs no better, and is built to no higher standard than the identical 50 Summicron that is today priced at $2000. My fees have not doubled in the last 5 years, in fact the recession has forced me to lower them. I can't think of anything that I buy which has doubled in cost in the last 5 years. So when I try to justify to myself 'why Leica lenses cost so much' it's harder than it was five years ago. About twice. Hi Hold on all CV lenses are crap, fall apart, etc. I'd like to assume you meant that tongue-in-cheek. I've bought numerous CV lenses, all well-used, and none has fallen apart or failed in any way. In fact the only two lenses of any mfr that I've ever owned that literally fell apart were Leicas: a 3rd-gen 28 Elmarit and a 35 Summicron-ASPH. Both lenses had the front end come unglued and unscrewed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted April 27, 2011 Share #12 Posted April 27, 2011 Often, when some of my old prints are blurry or out of focus, I take a picture of them with my M7 and Summilux 50 ASPH. I then print that negative and all is sharp. Quite incredible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesop Posted April 27, 2011 Share #13 Posted April 27, 2011 Often, when some of my old prints are blurry or out of focus, I take a picture of them with my M7 and Summilux 50 ASPH. I then print that negative and all is sharp. Quite incredible. ...heh, heh - you kill me, Ned. But I (absolutely) get it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted April 27, 2011 Share #14 Posted April 27, 2011 What can you do: Leica lenses are TaCk ShArP! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xmas Posted April 27, 2011 Share #15 Posted April 27, 2011 I'd like to assume you meant that tongue-in-cheek. I've bought numerous CV lenses, all well-used, and none has fallen apart or failed in any way. In fact the only two lenses of any mfr that I've ever owned that literally fell apart were Leicas: a 3rd-gen 28 Elmarit and a 35 Summicron-ASPH. Both lenses had the front end come unglued and unscrewed. Confirmed, well spotted, - two of my CV have been damage by 'primates', but they are still hanging together, still take good quality shots, the others are all ok. One was less than a current Leica hood in GBP. I wont dismantle until they degrade in performance. Ive been known to lose lens hoods so it is relaxing to know that a lens is 'replacable'. I only have two ZM lenses so not a statistical significant sample, resonable build quality, good optically. Most of my Leica Lenses are antiques. Some compatibility problems but had similar 30 years ago. But sorry about yours, you need to handle them like glass. Noel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.