leica lenses vs nikon/canon

[dachs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

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

 

we are at the period where computation and production are at apogee; probably ALL the major factories, at their chosen price ranges.

 

probably, a reverse of the 1960's what he said above is the correct order of precedence, dependant on the format you shoot.

 

Poor old Leica are however very overstretched; even B&H in USA list nearly evrything new as "unavailable" or "Preorder"

 

It's only a small firm even with Portugal and Canada on shifts, the factory is 1/100th the size of Canon..... I think they've bitten off more than they can chew by lurching into the digi age

 

Try and find a promised lens shutter S2 zoom...........

[dachs]

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?

 

not the point; most modern Leica lenses give max quality within one or two stops of wide open; few Jap lenses do (Nikon 18mm aside ad some NikCanon sport optics 300mm and above, at similar disgusting prices to Leica nad Hasselblad)

 

The base line is, if you have a Leica 35mm f 1,4, you can shoot 1,4 and the pic is marvellous. All the Leica lenses exhibit this, not to say that f 2,0, 2,8 isn't better, just that wide open is near perfect already.

[Advertisement]

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

[DaveO]

I don't own a Leica, but I have seen pictures of female models faces with the Nikon D 800 where you can see the pores and thin white facial hairs clearly. Much better than the girls picture here that is not as sharp. Don't know what lens was used. Probably a Nikon.

Edited October 12, 2012 by DaveO

[phancj]

Few days ago there was a wedding exhibition in the mall and I shot some models with the D800/85 1.4G. The details were simply stunning, and that "3D pop" is all so evident.

 

having said that though I like the D800 I brought it to India some months ago and was shooting a dilapidated coffee store made of stones and broken pieces of plywood and had a dozen locals screaming at me NOT to take their photos. On the contrary if I had taken my X1 I do not think they will take so much offense (I took many photos with the X1 in India with zero problem and objection).

 

So even if the D800 matches leica in image quality, other considerations apply too. Stealth and discreet form factor is important. Ditto autofocus IMO. Hence it is all give and take. Nikkor lenses vary greatly in quality, with leica the quality is totally consistent. I am totally happy with the images I got out of the nikkor 35 1.4G and 85 1.4G. But lugging them and some zooms like 70-200 is no fun.

 

I am still in the market for a small camera with full frame and autofocus. So far sony looks like the most probable contender to make such a camera. And their association with zeiss will take care of the lenses.

 

I almost bought a M9 a year or so ago, but felt the lack of AF an impediment to the way I shoot.

 

Meanwhile the X1 and the D800 are all I need.

 

 

CJ

Edited October 13, 2012 by phancj

[Tonki-M]

 

I almost bought a M9 a year or so ago, but felt the lack of AF an impediment to the way I shoot.

 

CJ

 

that is how most feel when factoring in the pros and cons, i know i did. but it just requires that little leap of faith and not looking back. i've been using M9 for almost 2 yrs now, but initially i was using Canon 5DII. and i can say with all confidence (at least for myself) that MF of the Rangefinder system is pretty close to AF (sometimes even faster), it all depends on the user's ability. in low light? there's no challenge

 

from experience, i've had far less 'miss' than i ever had with the DSLR and their AF. i still own the 5DII for macro and tele, but anything from the range of 15-75, it will be always be a M9

[phancj]

that is how most feel when factoring in the pros and cons, i know i did. but it just requires that little leap of faith and not looking back. i've been using M9 for almost 2 yrs now, but initially i was using Canon 5DII. and i can say with all confidence (at least for myself) that MF of the Rangefinder system is pretty close to AF (sometimes even faster), it all depends on the user's ability. in low light? there's no challenge

 

from experience, i've had far less 'miss' than i ever had with the DSLR and their AF. i still own the 5DII for macro and tele, but anything from the range of 15-75, it will be always be a M9

 

No offense but teh 5D2 was notorious for its inaccurate AF....

 

The 5D3 on the other hand far as I know has stellar AF...

 

I tried the M8 & M9 and the RF is accurate, but I cannot imagine it being fast, of course I am speaking for myself and not the many veteran RF users here.

 

I also have no doubt I will never match the AF of the modern DSLRs using the RF.

 

I am eagerly waiting for the new M and see if the focus peaking is any good. if so I may be in, even though there will be a dent in my pocket.

 

CJ

[Tonki-M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

focus peaking (as i've tried on NEX cameras) is interesting and hope it does better than the NEX camera. but i've never preferred electronic view of things, i prefer optical view. probably why i love the RF

 

yes, 5d2 is notorious for its AF, but it's hardly the only dslr i've used. d700, d800, 5d3, 7d, d3x, d3s, i've used them all for weeks on loan. while they're all great and focus 'fine'. that tact-sharp shot wide-open are much less reliable than a rangefinder. not sure if focus shift or the lens sharpness wide open itself is the culprit, but this is my general observation. anything over f4, it all becomes similar.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Tonki-M

[phancj]

Yes, leica lenses are great wide open...but there are some lenses in the nikon and canon lens line up that matches the wide open performance, though indeed few.There are many duds in the japanese lenses, virtually none in leica.

 

M lenses are so light and tiny for that terrific performance, and on that basis alone is worth considering IMO.

 

As for AF in the latest cameras I can only say nothing will come close (RF included) coz they are phenomenal and dead accurate. My D800 is an example. Fast and accurate. I am under no illusion that even if I practice and practice I can never have that kind of lightning response with a RF cam.

 

Whats very revolutionary in the new M is the combination of focus peaking, live view and RF, so one needs not choose which tech to give up since aside from AF, we now have 3 modes to enjoy.

 

CJ

Edited October 16, 2012 by phancj

[wildlightphoto]

As for AF in the latest cameras I can only say nothing will come close (RF included) coz they are phenomenal and dead accurate. My D800 is an example.

 

I take it your sample doesn't have the left-side problem.

 

Whats very revolutionary in the new M is the combination of focus peaking, live view and RF, so one needs not choose which tech to give up since aside from AF, we now have 3 modes to enjoy.

 

Focus peaking and to a lesser extent live view interest me because they allow evaluation of focus over the entire image area, just like my Leicaflex SL from 1968. These technologies also don't have the much too common calibration issues of phase-detect AF SLRs.

[phancj]

YEs, thankfully my D800 does not exhibit the left AF problem. I verified it extensively test charts, lensalign, LV vs VF...consider myself lucky. I only tested the cam coz of the online rants, even though I never used the left outermost AF point in all my previous DSLRs either but I do not cherish the thought of having a brand new defective cam.

 

The M has few functional additions which makes it more compelling and IMO puts the M as a camera not for just the purists, and will appeal to a larger group of people who want to use the stellar leica lenses but with more ways to use it.

 

If leica manages AF some time i future it will be an absolute no brainer IMO but right now the AF system from leica is the S series which is out of reach for many myself included.

 

Much as I do not mind MF but I have to concede my advancing age.

 

CJ

Edited October 16, 2012 by phancj

[tobey bilek]

Leica lenses put on Nikon cameras do not look like they do on Leica cameras, digital cameras . There is more to it than lenses. There is a lot of "stuff" going on under the cover in a Leica digital. The Leica lenses lose much of the luster when put on a Nikon camera

 

I am working to get a match color /contrast wise without much luck.

[sheikhrafiq79]

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

[jaapv]

That is not true, there are plenty solid metal and glass Japanese lenses, pretty good ones too.

[dachs]

That is not true, there are plenty solid metal and glass Japanese lenses, pretty good ones too.

 

indeed - the Canon 35mm f1,4 "L" usm is for example £1158 - about what I paid new six years ago for a Leica equivalent manual "M" lens, new.

 

Granted the Canon has motors and so on, but the main cost of design, mount accuracy and especially the glass purchased from the few who do it (these glasses weigh over twice as much as window glass and do not come cheap) is common to every one. Nikon's top lenses are similarly priced or even more, same reason.

 

so there isn't such a vast price difference - when considering the upper quality echelons. Have a look at the pro Japanese long focus sports lenses - over £5000 isn't uncommon.

 

I'd be very surprised if the results didn't compare fairly well, people who make a living with them must buy them for a reason....

[phancj]

Yes, My Nikkor 35 1.4G is a stellar performer and is 80% of the time on the D800...very nice rendering.

 

But the setup is a real brick haha...

 

CJ

[pgk]

Yes, My Nikkor 35 1.4G is a stellar performer and is 80% of the time on the D800...very nice rendering.

 

But the setup is a real brick haha...

 

CJ

Ditto - Canon 35/1.4 on 5D2 - excellent performer but still a brick....

[andym911]

If you have not used the MF Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS then you are missing a great lens,

Puts both the cron and Lux in its place...

Load an F3 with film, shoot with this lens and discover joy in photography .

 

Nikon have made some jewels and this is one of them.

 

Sure I love Leica glass but Nikon has the edge in some particular areas.

 

best andy

Edited November 10, 2012 by andym911

[phancj]

I was thinking of getting the 50 1.2 ais which is still available right now....maybe try to toy with it for videos. For most of my photography I prefer AF.

 

Unfortunately my search for info on how this lens behaves on the D800 yielded few results....I guess I got to take time to go to the cam store to try out the lens.

 

Cheers,

CJ

[sheikhrafiq79]

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SilentShutter]

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

 

Seems you never touched a Nikkor or Canon lens build in 1959 ?

This was also the time the "Japs" kicked Leica´s ass and took over the lead......