leica lenses vs nikon/canon

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting info (and Andy's test in the linked thread very interesting indeed). It reminds me to do a cross-system test of my various 50s.

 

But shouldn't this thread be in the lens forum?

[dachs]

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/199670-35-summilux-asph-vs-canon-35-a.html

 

Whadya think, stump?

 

Now - sometimes it is a question of timing. The current 85 Nikkor f/1.4 AF-G more or less equals my 75 Summilux f/1.4 (the Nikkor has slightly better absolute resolution in the center @ f/1.4, and better controlled longitudinal CA, while the Summilux holds up better in the corners, wide-open or stopped down). However, the Leica lens was designed and built in 1980 (32 years ago) - while Nikon only caught up in 2010.

 

Sometimes the timing goes the other way - the 1960's 50mm Summilux (non-ASPH) had a long life, and at least the Canon and Zeiss/Kyocera manual-focus versions had caught up with it back in the 80's (IMHO) at least as far as raw resolution is concerned. The ASPH 50 Summilux leapfrogged them all, though, a decade ago.

 

Sometimes a Canon or Nikon lens may equal a Leitz/Leica if the lenses are "moderate" in requirements - 28mm f/2.8 lenses seem to be easy to get right, or at least have been since the mid-80's.

 

Finally, sometimes Canon/Nikon can equal a Leica lens if size is no object. Compare the size of the two 35s in the first image of that first link. Even if the Canon had equalled the Summilux - the Summilux would still have being doing the same job in 1/4 the bulk. My 90 Tele-Elmarit is not a lot better than a Nikkor 105 f/2.5 - but it does just as well in half the bulk and 2/3rds the weight.

 

Part of the extra value of a Leica M lens lies in performance. But a lot also lies in the four little flanges and the cam on the back - that connect it to an M rangefinder body.

 

on the ones I have experience directly of, I agree. We must recognise that L and Z in the last ten years have built what is the extreme of technically feasible, at almost any price. Nikon and Canon have generally designed/fabricated what is commercially feasible to mass produce. Exceptions of the latter (not relevant to M system) are sports pro lenses of further telephoto, all of which cost similar disgusting prices for a given aperture/focal length as the L & Z items, at the shorter end of the scale.

 

Don't forget that some Z movie lenses set you back in the near 100k €uros..... you get what you pay for, if you need it (must have it).

 

Back to M system - we ran a straw poll a couple of years back between Nikon and Leica pictures (prints from slides)

Of half a dozen prints, scattered on a desk, everyone in the office including non-anoraks, chose the Leica shots as most real, most pleasing.

 

Now a show stopper; the (almost) same view point shot from a IIIf and collapsible Elmar of about 1950 something and that from an M7 and the modern version, both colour prints off slides by the same lab, and everyone prefers the mood of the 60+ year old machine.

 

And so do I. So maybe the ultimate crispness, contrast, colour fidelity and undoubted ability of modern L and Z lenses to work wide open is not the be all and end all. I get the same effect from an ancient 21mm f3,4 Leica lens, ie: the most pleasing and very straight line 'drawing', however contrast saturation and detailed punch, now left far behind.

 

Maybe we are too bound up in technicalities, but it is fun and interesting......

 

An endless topic. All I know is, that I never have to doubt my kit, wide open in dull conditions I will get the best there is, the rest - as they say - is up to me.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dachs]

Interesting info (and Andy's test in the linked thread very interesting indeed). It reminds me to do a cross-system test of my various 50s.

 

But shouldn't this thread be in the lens forum?

 

not necessarily, because ultimate hand worked lens register, expertly refined on the bench with manual rangefinder adjustment, a meter that although crude and simple then once understood is near infallible, cams that engage to millionth of millimetre for every one of a bagful of glasses, it is all part of the whole ethos.

 

My only worry is that now, the wee factory at Solms (and outposts) is so filled with diverse products they are very over stretched, They were set up originally as a fine clockwork and glass hand finishing factory, I wonder how they are now coping trying to match the Japanese with dozens of electronic based products drawn from parts all over the World....

[Manolo Laguillo]

I don't agree. It takes at least training and - in many cases - some kind of tuition to be able to perceive the difference between indifferent, good and excellent results. It also takes the will to do so, of course, but that's another story.

 

we are saying, or trying to say, more or less the same :-)

 

When you show to somebody without training a print made from 35 mm neg and another made from a 4x5 neg, he/she will notice the existence of differences between them, but will not be able to define them, to verbalize where those differences are.

 

The more the training, the more greater will be the ability to recognize fine nuances.

[pop]

we are saying, or trying to say, more or less the same :-)

 

When you show to somebody without training a print made from 35 mm neg and another made from a 4x5 neg, he/she will notice the existence of differences between them, but will not be able to define them, to verbalize where those differences are.

 

The more the training, the more greater will be the ability to recognize fine nuances.

 

I am not trying to say the same. In my experience, you will find people who will ask you if there was any difference at all because they do not perceive any difference. The cause is not acuity of vision but the training to actually "see" them. The same applies to music and spoken language, two name but two other areas.

[NZDavid]

we are saying, or trying to say, more or less the same :-)

 

When you show to somebody without training a print made from 35 mm neg and another made from a 4x5 neg, he/she will notice the existence of differences between them, but will not be able to define them, to verbalize where those differences are.

 

The more the training, the more greater will be the ability to recognize fine nuances.

 

 

Yes, I expect so. But you need to define the size of the print and viewing distance and also printing method or else there are too many variables to give a definitive answer.

 

However, an interesting question.

 

Diverging from the specific lenses mentioned by the OP, I can confirm there is indeed a very marked difference between Leica lenses and the many pro shots using Canon and Nikon zooms (typically 17-35) which are often submitted for publication. The pro zooms capture the image fine but often exhibit very noticeable distortion. They are still OK, but not of the same standard.

Edited September 7, 2012 by NZDavid

[Manolo Laguillo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am not trying to say the same. In my experience, you will find people who will ask you if there was any difference at all because they do not perceive any difference. The cause is not acuity of vision but the training to actually "see" them. The same applies to music and spoken language, two name but two other areas.

 

ok, it's true, I do have that experience as well, of people without the capacity to see the differences. But I was thinking more in my students, people with the will of learning photography and visual arts, but without the training (otherwise they would not be students...). At the beginning they are unable to tell_where_the differences are, but are able to see that they_are_differences. In due time they usually learn to verbalize them.

 

Of course we will differ if you have in mind_this_kind of people, and I have in mind_that_kind of people...

 

That's the problem with the enunciation of broad generalizations: where shall we put the border between the mainstream and the exception?

[pop]

(...) I do have that experience as well, of people without the capacity to see the differences. But I was thinking more in my students, people with the will of learning photography and visual arts, but without the training (...)

 

We're in agreement about that.

[jankap]

Is it possible to arrange a competition?

Jan

[farnz]

Oh goodness I hope not. With such a subjective competition there could be no clear winner, the thread would drag on interminably and would inevitably descend into heavily defended personal opinions and worse. Fortunately the forum's rules require either the camera or the lens or both to be made by Leica so it can't take place here.

 

At the end of the day why does it matter? Bragging rights?

 

Pete.

[jankap]

To make it clear, I am not interested. If you can´t measure it, forget it. Lens, camera, sensor, photoshopwork, display, brand image and the author produce a result.

 

But "have Dlux-2 pictures a different look?" and this thread suggest, that there is a market for these kind of blogs.

I remember Lula's test of the NEX5 with the M9. Incomparable cameras, that somehow deliver pictures of the same subject on my laptop screen. Perhaps I should have a look again with my new retina-display!

 

Interesting is his test of the DP2-Merrill. This sensor seems to run circles around the other types.

Jan

[IkarusJohn]

All I know is, that I never have to doubt my kit, wide open in dull conditions I will get the best there is, the rest - as they say - is up to me.

 

The biggest limitation to my photography is me. However, when I switched to an M9 two years ago, my wife noticed immediately.

[erl]

The biggest limitation to my photography is me.

That is no different from anyone. The difference is, you admit it!

However, when I switched to an M9 two years ago, my wife noticed immediately.

Did she notice the difference in the pics, or the bank account?

[IkarusJohn]

Did she notice the difference in the pics, or the bank account?

 

The bank account came later, but as it was an insurance payout, I was reasonably safe ...

[tobey bilek]

When I first got Leica in 1980, I would emerge from my darkroom with 6 or more 8x 10 prints. They went on the big table for the spouses inspection.

 

She could pick out the Leica prints with no coaching 100% of the time and she knew zip about photography and lenses. Previous camera was a Pentax system , 4 bodies, 12 lenses, etc, most all bought new, many super multicoated. Canon was no better. Did not have Nikon until recently and that is mostly digital and I got into that because Leica had no digital. My son bought a M digital and I came back.

 

I got into Leica when I tried to duplicate the quality prints I found the Kodak & Ilford & Agfa paper sample books. Tried different films, developers, you name it. No cigar. Then I was offered a Leica on loan. Ah so, said the blind man. That is the problem.

 

I must admit, digital narrows the differences because I can do things I never could do with film.

 

One big secret is you can not focus a Nikon digi except with live view or on a well calibrated Katz Eye screen. AF MUST be fine tuned to the specific camera body to get the best results. Even then when I bracket focus with fine tune, I can always get it perfect, one setting will front focus, the adjacent will back focus. So the D700 for which a Katz Screen is available, I can get perfect focus. D3 has none, so I resort to the other two methods.

[FTI]

I used Zeiss lenses and AIS lenses on the D700. While I would have loved the split screens from Katz Eyes... in retrospect it wasn't that bad. I used the DK17M magnifier and managed to get many of my moving kids in focus. Last MF lens was a 50mm 1.2 AIS. I could focus wide open.

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!

[IkarusJohn]

I used Zeiss lenses and AIS lenses on the D700. While I would have loved the split screens from Katz Eyes... in retrospect it wasn't that bad. I used the DK17M magnifier and managed to get many of my moving kids in focus. Last MF lens was a 50mm 1.2 AIS. I could focus wide open.

 

Beautiful. Really beautiful.

[dickgrafixstop]

Who knows? We all see differently and we all have special preferences. I did want to try,

so I took a M6 with 50 lux, a Canon EOS3 with 50 f1.4. Loaded each camera with the

same batch of slide film and took a series of shots with varying subjects and various lighting conditions and camera settings from a tripod with the same manual

settings. Processed at the same place and projected them on a screen with the two

sets intermixed. Asked two other photographer friends in to "view" the slide show and

pick the Leica shots versus the Canon shots. Shots in random order, 52 of 60 "picks"

were correct. When paired images were shown and a-b'ed - 60 of the 60 were identified

correctly. You tell me if there's a difference.

[dachs]

Who knows? We all see differently and we all have special preferences. I did want to try,

When paired images were shown and a-b'ed - 60 of the 60 were identified

correctly. You tell me if there's a difference.

 

my word you went to a lot of trouble but thanks for giving us that gen.

From my little (very little by comparison) straw polls the same result, even mixed audiences (ie - non photographers). So, I believe you, and may I say, admire your diligence with some real world efforts.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Larcomb]

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.

 

Yes, there is a difference. Leica's reputation does not rest on air. Especially wide open. Mostly in 'brilliance' and tonal clarity rather than mere resolution. After all, hand-held photography will tend to obscure the finest details due to camera shake.

 

Anybody can see these differences.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Larcomb