leica lenses vs nikon/canon

[dhsimmonds]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The OP posed a very interesting question that frankly is very difficult to answer objectively.

 

I daresay that many of us have asked the same question to ourselves again and again!

 

LIke many here I too have used a number of different cameras each with some very excellent lenses, including Zeiss producing excellent results technically. However the fact remains that amongst my stack of A3 sized exhibition prints, the ones that just leap out from a board of say 20 taken with a variety of lenses, the ones that leap out and are commented on are always from a Leica lens.

 

I would qualify this by stating that not all of my images taken with Leica glass produce this effect, far from it, but NONE of my otherwise technically perfect images produce that "je ne sais quoi" of the good Leica images. Some refer to this as the Leica "glow".

 

Whatever it is, it's very, very special!

[dachs]

The OP posed a very interesting question that frankly is very difficult to answer objectively.

 

I daresay that many of us have asked the same question to ourselves again and again!

 

LIke many here I too have used a number of different cameras each with some very excellent lenses, including Zeiss producing excellent results technically. However the fact remains that amongst my stack of A3 sized exhibition prints, the ones that just leap out from a board of say 20 taken with a variety of lenses, the ones that leap out and are commented on are always from a Leica lens.

 

I would qualify this by stating that not all of my images taken with Leica glass produce this effect, far from it, but NONE of my otherwise technically perfect images produce that "je ne sais quoi" of the good Leica images. Some refer to this as the Leica "glow".

 

Whatever it is, it's very, very special!

 

Agree to a point but when you look at people using 6x7 and 6x9 negatives on a tripod with 1950's folders using Zeiss T* lenses, not so sure they're inferior. Also, Hasselblads give similar results (if, slightly less portable!!!).

 

Have a look at Erwin Puts 'Tao of Leica' and he always qualifies that camera shake hand held and slight off focus due to eyesight or rushing can wipe the floor with resolution, the glow, whatever - the use of superior optics carries the penalty that technique must be also more exacting.

[dhsimmonds]

Agree to a point but when you look at people using 6x7 and 6x9 negatives on a tripod with 1950's folders using Zeiss T* lenses, not so sure they're inferior. Also, Hasselblads give similar results (if, slightly less portable!!!).

 

Have a look at Erwin Puts 'Tao of Leica' and he always qualifies that camera shake hand held and slight off focus due to eyesight or rushing can wipe the floor with resolution, the glow, whatever - the use of superior optics carries the penalty that technique must be also more exacting.

 

Yes of course, good technique is vital as is good light. I was comparing handheld full frame or near full frame (the DMR is 1.3 crop I believe) 36x24mm sensor cameras and certainly not medium format digital or plate film cameras used in making my own images.

 

I know Erwin, in fact we were with him and his charming wife just two week-ends ago. He uses a variety of cameras but of course his work centres on Leica and his views are highly respected as a member of the Fellowship.

[scjohn]

I don't know about test results or sharpness or anything else but I use both a Nikon and a leica. They are far different. I have often used both systems at a shoot. I don't say much but the models just seem to like the look of the leica images too. Perhaps they AREN'T are sharp. Who knows. It is just an entirely different look.

[zapp]

will images shot with for a 50mm lux asph look any different then images shot with a modern nikon/canon 50mm shot at the same aperture?

 

if there is a difference to be seen is it at all apertures?

 

and if there is no perceptible image difference, what is the big commotion over leica glass then?

 

 

just wondering.

 

This is a pointless question. Let's start simple. You can not mount a M lens to a Canon camera, so it will be difficutl to compare anything because sensors are involved as well. Second thing most people don't get is that the M by design has a huge advantage in the wide angle arena when talking about image quality. 35mm and below there is no match in image quality from Canon or Nikon. Above 35 mm focal length the advantage of the M lenses diminishes, but is often still obvious.

If you want to see huge differences looka t medium format systems where images can look completely different due to other design factors.

Canon/Nikon/Leica may share the same image format, but we are comparing different camera-lens-sensor designs here.

[shard]

This is a pointless question. Let's start simple. You can not mount a M lens to a Canon camera, so it will be difficutl to compare anything because sensors are involved as well. Second thing most people don't get is that the M by design has a huge advantage in the wide angle arena when talking about image quality. 35mm and below there is no match in image quality from Canon or Nikon. Above 35 mm focal length the advantage of the M lenses diminishes, but is often still obvious.

If you want to see huge differences looka t medium format systems where images can look completely different due to other design factors.

Canon/Nikon/Leica may share the same image format, but we are comparing different camera-lens-sensor designs here.

 

If you are using film the camera body is pretty much eliminated from the equation?

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seeing how this thread is rather long, I don't dare to think what will happen when a similar thread will emerge at the time in which the new M, capable of hosting MANY other excellent lenses, will be available...

 

My only experience with a non Leica 35mm camera dates to years ago at film times... Contarex Super with its lenses, 3 half days in a fine environment with the specific purpose of making some comparisions (Kodak 100 Asa color neg - no direct control on develop-print process.. but made the same day at the same lab... a little one in a mountain village, operated by a single person) :there were onlu two cases of "clear winner" (Sonnar 250 better than Telyt 280V2, Summicron 35 better than Distagon 35) : the most intriguing comparision was between the 50 f2 (so that I even did repeat the trial sometime after, in another location) : no difference in sharpness but really different rendition on colors.... with the Planar that gave a someway more pleasant look with "volumetric" color subject (and contrast between adiacent colors) IN the focus plane, whilst the Summicron was more pleasant in the transition to OOF, so that I liked more it in pictures in which the "3D/depth" of the scene was a factor.

 

Also the Distagon 18 was a winner... but compared with the old SuperAngulon 3,4... I am too lazy to repeat the comparision with the Asph 21 on film (but compared them on M8 - and the new Leica, not surprisingly, is a step up... moreover at f4 vs. f4, that means Distagon wide open).

 

Globally, the other comparisions (25 f2,8 vs. 28 f2,8 - 85 f2 vs. 90 f2 - 135 f4 vs. 135 f4) were of subjective taste... in general the Leitz pics "popped" out finer, but the Zeiss had always, as in the 50, something special on the colors.

All the Leitz were rather "old", the newest one being the Elmarit 28 which is a lens from 1982 (still in regular use on M8, of course)

[hoppyman]

Summilux 50 ASPH on M9, handheld.

View at 100% (this is a little less than 5% of the total pixels)

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!

Edited September 23, 2012 by hoppyman

[Paul J]

First is a 100% crop with a Canon 1ds3 and 50mm 1.2 @ f11.

Second is a 100% crop from a Leica M9 and 75mm 1.4 @ f11.

 

Both shot with flash, both have ZERO sharpening and are SOOC.

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!

[HeinzX]

In one of the last LFIs an excellent turkish photographer (some shots of turkey of the sixties hav been shown) - a member of Magnum has said: It does not matter, what

equipment I use, give me a sewing machine, and I will make photogaphs with it. Of course this is overstated, but there is a ray of truth in it. But coming back to the original question - unprocessed you will see some in some cases - depending on the lenses, which are used. But after processing I really doubt, if the best lenses of Canon or Nikon are used. Nevertheless users of M Leicas and the relevant Leica lenses are no fools because the spent so much money on the Leica equipment. This equipment is much less bulky and much more lighter than the same in DSLRs. And it is not so striking as a DSLR. By the way, the price gap between Leica and i.e. Canon is becoming closer. The 1 DX is Euro 6300, the new 24/70 2.8 II Euro 2300.

[dachs]

First is a 100% crop with a Canon 1ds3 and 50mm 1.2 @ f11.

Second is a 100% crop from a Leica M9 and 75mm 1.4 @ f11.

 

Both shot with flash, both have ZERO sharpening and are SOOC.

 

but the 75 1,4 (gold dust now but I'll not part with mine) is 'allegedly' less crisp at nearer distances (a few metres, as in a portrait).

Your shot seems not shew that problem! As well, the 75 is computed to be used at 1,4 - you could have had the same shot without flash, perhaps.

My focusing and steadiness are far bigger factors in the 75 performance than the fact it doesn't have aspherics or floating near focus elements.

 

I'd like to see a repeat with both optics at say f2,0; looking at the shots I think probably neck and neck might occur, within the envelope of perfect tripod technique and exposure and focus pulling of course.

 

Agree with the other post too; the prices of pro lenses from Nikon and Canon even exceed those of Leica in cases; though of course a 300 2,8 would be meaningless on a rangefinder it indicates that, if you want ultimate design and special glasses, coatings and exact construction, then wherever you are in the world, you have to pay.

[farnz]

First is a 100% crop with a Canon 1ds3 and 50mm 1.2 @ f11.

Second is a 100% crop from a Leica M9 and 75mm 1.4 @ f11.

 

Both shot with flash, both have ZERO sharpening and are SOOC.

Paul,

 

Don't know about the Canon but I believe the 75 Summilux is diffraction 'limited' to f/8 so at f/11 it's performance is likely to be degraded by diffraction.

 

Pete.

[tobey bilek]

I am running some comparisons now.

 

Not talking about sharpness because they are the same at 5.6.

 

So far, same subject, same time, 85 G Nikor, my kept in a glass box 90 summicron from 1984. Summicron looks more real than the nikor, more saturated colors, more contrast.

 

The problem is how does one campare?. I use DGN from the M9, there are choices with NEF , adobe standard, nikon neutral, nikon standard which is more of a match than my usual neutral.

 

Leica DNG has some processing to make it above neutral, but it is hidden processing. I am convinced. Put a leica lens on a Nikon, they look way closer to Nikon files. I guess the best way is to use a single roll of film.

 

One must also consider Nikon has designed their equipment to appeal to the Japanese market, european tastes are different. Back in the old days of film, the same film was made for different destinations in different ways.

 

Maybe I will resort to just using Adobe standard for both and go from there.

 

I will say the much maligned 50 1.4 G is as good if not better than a brand new Summicron 50 at F2. I did have to fine tune the focus to get it though.

 

I would appreciate any suggestions for testing methodology.

Edited September 23, 2012 by tobey bilek

[Paul J]

Paul,

 

Don't know about the Canon but I believe the 75 Summilux is diffraction 'limited' to f/8 so at f/11 it's performance is likely to be degraded by diffraction.

 

Pete.

 

I've found the effects of diffraction quite small at f11. There is some there but not that much, you can see some in the eye lashes in this shot. Even at f16 is not too perceptible and quite easily corrected if desired.

 

As a reference my V Blad lenses with high res backs are quite noticible though. Can still be corrected reasonably well though. It was enough for me to upgrade (for want of a better word) to the H series Blad.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Paul J

[Paul J]

Lastly, for comparison.

 

The first shot is the same Leica Summilux 75mm shot at f11. The second is a Phase One P65+ and Hasselblad HC 150mm on H2 shot at around f11.

 

The Leica is really very impressive and has replaced alot of my work with the Phase One.

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!

[dachs]

wonderful comparison efforts and thank you all for stunning expositions.

I might mention there is now a tendency for this thread to look like Moorfields' Hospital eye disease charts

(I wonder what those old pix were shot with? In passing only)

 

But again, thanks for the sterling efforts undertaken, we learn all the time.

[Leos]

I have owned and shot almost anything available save for the tilt/shift lenses and long super teles in Canon EF and Nikon F mount. My experience with Leica is much smaller but what I have shot so far, are setting the reference point for 35mm lenses.

The number of lenses that reaches into Leica territory are few and far between.

Some examples:

Nikon 58mm f1.2 NOCT

Canon 85mm f1.2 L

Nikon 105mm f2.5 (not ultimately "the best", but its good from wide open)

Canon 135mm f2 L

Nikon AFS 200mm f2 VR

[stump4545]

does a 50mm lux asph shot at f2.8 still create better images than modern nikon/canon 50mm at 2.8?

 

 

i guess what i am asking is you shoot M lens stopped down to 2.8 or even 5.6 and not wide open is there any difference in image quality in "real life" not charts between m lens and canon/nikon?

[pgk]

does a 50mm lux asph shot at f2.8 still create better images than modern nikon/canon 50mm at 2.8?

 

 

i guess what i am asking is you shoot M lens stopped down to 2.8 or even 5.6 and not wide open is there any difference in image quality in "real life" not charts between m lens and canon/nikon?

It all depends..... on so many factors (flare, distortion, etc.). In some cases I would say yes and decidedly so. In others there will be very little difference. But its too open ended a question for a definitive answer. I have the 50/1.4 'lux asph and the Canon 50/1.4. Which is the better lens - well for me its the Leica for a whole host of reasons, but the Canon will still yield perfectly acceptable images in most situations. Which do I use most - the Leica. In comparison the Canon feels cheap (it cost 10% of the Leica lens). But its not as simple as comparing the images. I need MF for a lot of the images I shoot and the Canon offers poor MF.......

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LucisPictor]

Leica lenses, esp. the modern ones, are probably the best you can get.

But IMHO the differences to other premium lenses can mainly be seen when pixel-peeping' at least as far as sharpness etc. is concerned.

 

I have (and love) my old Nikkor lenses: 2.8/24, 2/35, 1.4/50, 1.2/55, 1.8/85, 3.5/135.

Those lenses tend be considerably warmer than Leica glass. Can be pretty nice for atmospheric or landscape shots, but is sometimes disturbing in portraits.

 

Leica is the top, followed by Zeiss, Voigtlader, Nikkor, Zuiko, Rokkor and Hexanon.