leica lenses vs nikon/canon

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

[colonel]

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^2

 

1. wide open

2. corners

3. MTA curve

 

At f2.8 the Nikon 35mm f1.4G starts to be awesome, a f2 its ok, below its poor

for Leica you are paying for wide open performance, and that tiny difference stopped down which only pixel peepers will notice

 

the nikon 50mm f1.4G is another matter. I wouldn't touch one again

the only Nikon lenses I rate are the 24mm, 35m and 85mm f1.4G

 

the 85mm f1.4G is worth buying just to stare at the front element!

 

Lastly remember that all lenses paint a different picture. Due to the coatings, glass, design, etc.

Whether you like Leica over Nikon is personal taste, but I do.

Zeiss is also very good

Edited September 5, 2012 by colonel

[Advertisement]

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

[stump4545]

wide open side by side (Leica glass vs canon/nikon), will the Leica images be noticeably better, sharper, better contrast, nicer bokeh etc..

 

will only a photographer's eye see the difference and pixel peepers?

[jaapv]

No - it is often easy to spot the difference. Having said that, other makers are no fools. For instance, the Canon 300 4.0 L is close to the Apo Telyt 280 4.0, certainly on paper and on test charts. Still it lacks the brilliance of the Leica lens to a certain extent, mainly because it uses far more elements than Leica does.

Sometimes Leica bought constructions from other makers as they were better -at the price- as they could make. For instance the Vario-Elmar 28-70 (Sigma), Vario-Elmar 70-200 (Minolta), the 35 PC, and quite a few more.

[Manolo Laguillo]

...

will only a photographer's eye see the difference and pixel peepers?

 

Good question! I would say that in any field, branch and activity, for perceiving those fine nuances that differentiate the excellent from the very good, and this from the good, require knowledge and expertise. These only arrive after years of dedication and study, and this is also true for those few individuals gifted with superior talent.

[jaapv]

Well , my wife who has little interest in photography is pretty quick to point out quality differences that I consider quite subtle..

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Even stopped down my Canon 50mm 1.2L is no match for my Leica Noctilux. Not even in the same ball park. Colour, tonality, sharpness, all of it.

 

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.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Paul J

[wildlightphoto]

... the Canon 300 4.0 L is close to the Apo Telyt 280 4.0, certainly on paper and on test charts. Still it lacks the brilliance of the Leica lens to a certain extent, mainly because it uses far more elements than Leica does.

 

A Spanish professional photographer wrote to me shortly after he had purchased the 280mm f/4 APO: "After testing it [280mm f/4 APO-Telyt] against Nikon 300/4,5 IFED, and Canon 300/4 L IS, It is obvious that those lenses are a bad joke compared with this divine lens. Bottomless sharpness, no CA, And no mater you shot at F:4, 5,6 8.... A nirvana lens."

 

The reactions I get from gallery owners when they see a big print made with the 280 says pretty much the same thing. Great fun to watch.

[adan]

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.

Edited September 6, 2012 by adan

[jaapv]

Erwin Puts agrees with me, when measuring the lens, but n the end result I too find the Leica lens to outperform the others.

A Spanish professional photographer wrote to me shortly after he had purchased the 280mm f/4 APO: "After testing it [280mm f/4 APO-Telyt] against Nikon 300/4,5 IFED, and Canon 300/4 L IS, It is obvious that those lenses are a bad joke compared with this divine lens. Bottomless sharpness, no CA, And no mater you shot at F:4, 5,6 8.... A nirvana lens."

 

The reactions I get from gallery owners when they see a big print made with the 280 says pretty much the same thing. Great fun to watch.

[Manolo Laguillo]

Well , my wife who has little interest in photography is pretty quick to point out quality differences that I consider quite subtle..

 

Please agree with me that she can´t be considered a total ignorant in things photography, because she lives with you and gets the information by just being there

 

The difference between somebody with knowledge and somebody without it: both will notice the gaps between good and excellent results, but the first will be able to verbalize them.

[colonel]

Well , my wife who has little interest in photography is pretty quick to point out quality differences that I consider quite subtle..

 

My wife has no interest in the technical side but has a very active interest in art and I find is very good in criticising my pictures.

 

What she likes is more to so with composition, but just occasionally she will say "wow that really jumps out, it's really sharp"

 

I have only had those comments on D800E, xpro-1 and M9

And only the M9 wide open

[gyoung]

Most of this is expensive exotica, allright if you can use such things, my experience is with more humble items. I have a 21 Elmarit asph, a couple of Summicron 35s (1 M3 first type and 1 asph), a 50 Summicron (first rigid type) and a Summilux (last type before asph) and a 90 Elmarit as well as a few others. For Nikon I have 24, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8, all AF, as well as some other stuff. As I have said before my Leica lenses are sharper at wide apertures and produce 'nicer' colour IMHO. Some older manual focus Nikors I have, or have used before are better than the AF lenses, particularly the 35/2. Stopped down the lenses much more equal in sharpness.

All produce good results fully up to professional standards IMHO, I have used them all my professional life.

 

Gerry

[erl]

My standard 35mm kit(s) had always been Nikon, for years. When I covertly bought my first Leica (M6+50mm Cron) and started using it, the first thing my wife, who had not yet become aware of the new 'toy', said was, "what are you doing that's different? Your pics are suddenly looking better!"

 

I figured that was a good time to introduce her to the new Leica.

[wildlightphoto]

My standard 35mm kit(s) had always been Nikon, for years. When I covertly bought my first Leica (M6+50mm Cron) and started using it, the first thing my wife, who had not yet become aware of the new 'toy', said was, "what are you doing that's different? Your pics are suddenly looking better!"

 

After many years of using only Leica I started using a Canon 400mm lens and several people asked what I was doing different because the color and detail in the photos wasn't nearly as good.

[businessasusual]

I have done Nikon, I have done Canon - both prime and expensive top of their range lenses,,,the 3D atmospheric quality of image with Leica Glass..no match. (Canon, Nikon purchased for autofocus only) I traded in 3 lenses in each system on more than one occasion to buy one Leica lens, just ONE. Have to use my legs/brain/eyes a bit more.. that's worth the end result.

[pop]

The difference between somebody with knowledge and somebody without it: both will notice the gaps between good and excellent results, but the first will be able to verbalize them.

 

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.

[250swb]

I think you would see a bigger negative difference between modern Nikon and Canon lenses than you would between Leica and modern Olympus and Panasonic lenses.

 

Steve

[johnmoeleker]

I have a 1.0 noctilux and a 1.2 old nikkor 55 mm

The nikkor is better: sharper, wonderfull bokeh, beurifull colors. The noct is only good for the light of 1 candle

 

I have a 35mm cron and a 35mm nikkor 1.8

I can see not much difference

 

I have a 90 mm cron and a 1.8 85 mm nikkor

The nikkor is fine, the cron is super and allways the winner

 

 

iPhone using Tapatalk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[CalArts 99]

The content of the image itself normally always prevails over lens quality. We all know that historically there are amazing images made by photographers who didn't know the esoteric minutiae of the differences between lenses and didn't care.

 

I think psychologically it's always reassuring to know that one has supposedly the 'best' lenses available. That's often the driving force to seek them out. And of course it can be fun too, if one is interested in lenses themselves.

 

But we know that they won't make or break a compelling image either way.