leica lenses vs nikon/canon

[Jeffry Abt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Don't get me wrong Leica glass is superlative! But the Nikkor 85mmAF f1:4D  is a first class lens... and the AF-S Nikkor 200mm F2G ED VR II is close to perfect!

[Pekoni]

First thing I ask myself would be, do I want a bazooka connected with my camera body.

[gyoung]

First thing I ask myself would be, do I want a bazooka connected with my camera body.

Thats far too simplistic, a Nikon 85/90 or 180/2.8 is not significantly different in size to a Leica lens, and usually lighter.

The 'problem' comes with the big zooms, and ask an SL owner about his zooms.

 

Gerry

Edited April 7, 2018 by gyoung

[Gobert]

Don't get me wrong Leica glass is superlative! But the Nikkor 85mmAF f1:4D  is a first class lens... and the AF-S Nikkor 200mm F2G ED VR II is close to perfect!

I used to have this 85/1.4 as well. It’s nick name is “cream machine” because of its beautiful bokeh. Nikon made beautiful lenses, but in my opinion this stopped with the G-series: all plastic rubbish.

[Ouroboros]

I used to have this 85/1.4 as well. It’s nick name is “cream machine” because of its beautiful bokeh. Nikon made beautiful lenses, but in my opinion this stopped with the G-series: all plastic rubbish.

 

I've used Nikon 85mm f1.4 lenses from ai-s, AF-D and currently the F1.4G for my work for years.  Optically, the ai-s and AF-D are similar.  The f1.4G is better than both of it's predecessors, it is a wonderful lens.  Mainly a plastic body, yes,  but it is a particularly tough kind of plastic and to dismiss it as 'rubbish' purely because plastics are used in it's construction is silly.  It is durable and resilient and perfectly able to withstand the rigours of hard professional use, as are most of the other Nikon G lenses..

 

You can buy metal-bodied lenses from Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean manufacturers who no one in the West had heard of less than two years ago.  It does not follow that those lenses are better constructed because metal is used for the tubes. 

 

The exterior construction of a lens is only a part of the story and means nothing if the glue on the inside is garbage.  Remember HyperPrime.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Ouroboros

[pico]

the Japanese lenses never compete with Leica, and they are all plastic lenses , no good life

 

Yours is similar to the unfortunate comments I recall not long after WWII regarding all Asian products, but cameras were another venue and very many were remarkably well made - especially the Leica copies or emulators.

 

I quit using Asian lenses about 1977, and then we had a couple just plain poor Nikon lenses, in particular the very first 24mm ƒ/2.8 and 43-86 zoom. No plastic.  But the rest were enough to make first class images.

[Lonescapes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone ever done a double-blind lens shootout with many different lenses?

 

I know it's hard to control for exposure variables, but it would still be very cool if someone did it. In the studio musician world this has been done with tube amplifiers and guitar cabinets, and the results are very interesting. A lot of 'cheap' stuff that people mistook for the very expensive stuff and vice-versa.

[Narsuitus]

Has anyone ever done a double-blind lens shootout with many different lenses?

Before I use a new lens on a paying job, I conduct tests to make sure it is performing to my satisfaction. Thus far, the Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, and Fuji lenses have all performed admirably.

 

Slightly telephoto lens test by Narsuitus, on Flickr

[Guest]

 

I got quite the shock the first time I looked! One looks ultra sharp and defined with beautiful colour the other one looks like mushy pea soup.

Which was the pea soup one mate :)

 

Neil

[james.liam]

there no match leica vs japanese lenses, leica is far batter.

 

 

Setting aside build quality, Nikon and Canon LTM's of the early and mid 1950's (particularly the Nikkor 50/1.4, 35/1.8 and Canon 50/1.4, 35/2, 100/2) were arguably superior as well as often faster than Leica of the same era and probably what drove Wetzlar to up its game by the end of that decade. Had it not been for the shift to SLRs by 1960, I'd even venture a guess that Leica might have been eclipsed by Japanese lens designers. 

 

To this day, you're far more likely to find pristine Canon and Nikkor LTM lenses than you are 35 Summicron v.1 or 50 Rigid. Among these classic Leicas, irreparably hazed (former) and scratched soft front elements (latter) are all too common.

Edited April 9, 2018 by james.liam

[Jeff S]

Which was the pea soup one mate :)

 

Neil

One of the ones from when he posted over 5 years ago.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

First thing I ask myself would be, do I want a bazooka connected with my camera body.

The Canon rangefinder lenses from the 1950ies were smaller and considerably better than the Leica lenses of the era, and some ( like the 1.8/50) are still competitive today.

[jaapv]

there no match leica vs japanese lenses, leica is far batter.

Ummm, some Leica lenses were designed and even built by Minolta, others by Sigma, Kyocera...

[Keith_W]

Some time last year I had the chance to borrow a friend's Canon 5D2 and Canon 50/1.4 and compare it to my M10 + Summilux 50. The results are posted in this thread: 

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/277634-leica-summilux-50-vs-canon-5014-shootout/

[pgk]

I took one of my favourite photographs on a Nikon FM using a borrowed, 'broken' 28mm f/3.5 Ai'd Nikkor (the prong had been smashed off) on Kodachrome (25 I think). Lenses were pretty good back when I took the shot (~1980). Arguing optical quality was and is a red herring. And even some lenses which were not that good optically such as the 35/1.4 Summilux for example, had other attributes like small size, to make up for their shortcomings.

 

I have my suspicions that the progressing optical industry in China is starting to produce some excellent designs and is one to watch in the future. Suggesting that areas in the world are using designers, engineers and manufacturing which is not up to that found elsewhere is a transitory idea - things change and the centres of expertise shift too.

[Exodies]

Especially when the hard work is done by computers

[jaapv]

Well, Leica has been using computers for lens design since the early fifties...

[Keith_W]

What makes Leica lenses special: 

 

1. They have to make them small so that they don't block the viewfinder on M cameras. 

2. As a consequence of this, they have to use fewer elements. Most other manufacturers simply add more elements when they want to correct something. 

3. Because they have fewer elements, they have to manufacture them to tighter tolerances and use exotic glass to achieve the same outcome. 

 

I am still amazed by my jewel like 50 Summilux and 28 Summilux. If I had not shot Canon before, I would never know how special they are. 

[james.liam]

I used to have this 85/1.4 as well. It’s nick name is “cream machine” because of its beautiful bokeh. Nikon made beautiful lenses, but in my opinion this stopped with the G-series: all plastic rubbish.

 

 

Valid observation.

I used to have the 85/1.4 D as well, along with a 17-35/2.8 D, the rest were 'G'. Those lenses worked perfectly right out of the box.

Each and every polycarbonate G lens I bought (new) had some major flaw manifesting in the first 3 months; failed AF motors, aperture blades that suddenly came apart and de-centered optical elements (this one Nikon completely ignored). Also hated the fact that the aperture ring was deleted.  Even my first D700 had a defect in the bayonet. So it's funny reading the complaints of Leica-lifers here. The grass is less green on the other side.

 

The old AIS lenses are a different matter entirely; gems of mechanical engineering and assembly, worthy of mention along with Leica.

Edited April 21, 2018 by james.liam

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

I am still amazed by my jewel like 50 Summilux and 28 Summilux. If I had not shot Canon before, I would never know how special they are. 

 

I have 2 x 35mm M Summiluxes - the pre-aspheric and the pre-FLE aspheric - and a Canon 35/1.4. The Canon produces excellent images and it flares somewhat less than either of the Summiluxes, but it is truly a monstrous beast of a lens in comparison to either.