Signature Look / Leica Look

[carta]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can somebody please kindly share me examples of the "signature Leica look" of a Leica product?

 

I have been using Leicas for a while alongside Canon, and couldn't really tell the differences in the photos taken by the two, except for the wide-open Noctilux which creates an iconic swirl (though that may perhaps be seen in other lenses as well, I don't know).

 

I know this has been discussed several times, and there has always been people saying that you can't tell just by looking at an image posted on the web - but doesn't that mean the "look" is so miniscule that it gets diminished when posted?

 

Is print the ONLY way to appreciate Leica lenses?

 

Not trying to start an argument here or troll, but truly want to hear your opinions. Examples are most appreciated!

[Advertisement]

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

[@McLeica]

I have an opinion and plenty of rope, but I'm still not going to start on this thread. 

[DirkB17]

Go to Flickr, put in "50mm 1.4", see the result: https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=50mm%201.4

and you will quickly notice that you are not able to determine the camera or the lens. "Leica look" is either marketing speech or maybe something from the good ol days of film.

[NB23]

Please don't be a victim. You like Leica because it's a rangefinder. Not because of some magical lenses BS.

Besides, if one is after the Leica Magic, that's a ssrious clue about how their photography sucks. Looking for a crutch.

[Belle123]

Some can see the difference.  Some can't.  

[pgk]

Some older Leica lenses have a distinctive signature compared to modern lenses which is visible in web posts. This is because they are older, less well corrected lenses and their distinctive signature is visible because of this. Other older lenses show similar characteristics. Decent modern lenses are all very good, period. I cannot see any differences which can be ascribed to a manufacturer's 'look' although most lenses will reveal mostly minuscule nuances of difference, if pixel peeped sufficiently. Anyway its easy enough to check - just look through images on the web and decide for yourself which we taken on what . As for prints well unless they are very large and the image picked to show a specific characteristic, again seeing differences is going to be difficult if not near impossible.

 

I myself use Leica Rangefinders because I like them not because of any esoteric 'look' from their lenses .....

[spydrxx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Forget the term...it may have been applicable in the 1940-50s, but generally speaking, not today. Just my opinion after 48 years of using Leica and other bodies.

[Belle123]

So, then, all lenses are 'good enough'.  What hog wash.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

I'd say that most take the Leica Look to mean character.

 

I tend to prefer Leica lenses that I would describe as well corrected but there are other makes available.

 

Ironically the only character lens I use is a Zeiss*

 

*no prizes for guessing which. 

[pgk]

So, then, all lenses are 'good enough'.  What hog wash.

 

All 'decent' modern lenses are very good. Some older designs or cheaper ones may not be but in general lenses from reputable manufacturers are very good indeed. There really is no 'magic' about modern lenses. Their designers use sophisticated software to design them, production is amazingly tight on tolerances. How on earth can comparably specified lenses differ significantly? If no-one can define the difference how can it exist?

 

Actually I have a friend who is a lens designer. He uses Leica R lenses because they are excellent lenses and well made but as a designer he doesn't believe in 'magic' any more than I do.

[jip]

There is no Leica magic, but that doesn't mean some lenses have an amazing rendering!

 

Take a look at the Summilux-R 80mm f/1,4: http://jipvankuijk.nl/summilux-r-80-leica-r8-m-typ-240/

 

Or

 

Take a look at how the Leica S lenses render on the CCD sensor of the Leica S (Typ 006): http://jipvankuijk.nl/the-leica-s-typ-006/

 

In all fairness, I love my Leicas but really it comes more down to light, exposure and postprocessing than the lenses... or the camera.

[Paul J]

The more we look, the more we see. At first, you don't see it. Then after years of looking, it becomes subtle. Further years it becomes obvious, and sometime after that you want nothing less and can't live without it.

 

But "magic" is a matter of opinion and choice of words. Personally I find the differences highly favourable/desirable over most other lenses I've ever used, and in some cases I won't use anything else.

[DMJ]

It is about the experience.  The photos all look similar regardless of maker.  Think of cars; you can drive from A to B in any car & all will get you there. It is the same road.  However, some cars are more 'involving' than others.  Same result but different experience.  Which is why I have a Lotus Elise in my garage & a M240 as a camera.

[pico]

It is about the experience. [..]Which is why I have a Lotus Elise in my garage ...

Which engine?

[earleygallery]

Some can see the difference.  Some can't.  

 

What hog wash!!! 

[carta]

Thank you all for your opinions.

 

I'm relieved that nobody so far has told me that I am blind if I cannot see the difference. To be honest (and I think I have said this elsewhere) I use Leica gear not because I appreciate its distinct photographic results but because I can afford it and simply like the classical look of the equipment - and yes, perhaps the snob appeal.

 

But I know there are many others out there who buy it for the optical quality.

 

I have an Apo Summicron, Noctilux, and a few other "expensive lenses" which makes me feel special, but other than that feeling of ownership, there is nothing magical about them in my sense.

 

If you see the difference, good for you! I can't, and I envy you. I simply want to see where you can see the differences.

 

I enjoy this forum as much as anybody else does, but when people start talking how "Leicas are magical" and "Oh, look at that sjgnature Leica look!" and even "Sony makes plastic images" "You're blind if you can't see the difference between lightroom converted BW and a M Monochrom image" then I start to wonder if I'm and idiot for not "seeing the difference".

[earleygallery]

Can somebody please kindly share me examples of the "signature Leica look" of a Leica product?

 

I have been using Leicas for a while alongside Canon, and couldn't really tell the differences in the photos taken by the two, except for the wide-open Noctilux which creates an iconic swirl (though that may perhaps be seen in other lenses as well, I don't know).

 

I know this has been discussed several times, and there has always been people saying that you can't tell just by looking at an image posted on the web - but doesn't that mean the "look" is so miniscule that it gets diminished when posted?

 

Is print the ONLY way to appreciate Leica lenses?

 

Not trying to start an argument here or troll, but truly want to hear your opinions. Examples are most appreciated!

 

Do you mean the 'Leica look' of a 1930's Summar lens? Maybe you mean a 1960's Summicron? Or the clinically sharp look of an APO Summicron?

 

Do you mean the 'Leica look' achieved with grainy film like Tri X, or the clarity and strong colours of a Kodachrome? Maybe the saturated look of Velvia?

 

Or perhaps you're just talking about the sensor on an M8? No? Maybe the Monochrom? or the latest M? Or are you talking about the 'Leica look' of a Leica lens on a Sony?

 

Is it the 'Leica look' of a Panasonic made Leica lens?

 

Or is it the digitally corrected look of a T or SL lens you're thinking about?

 

Which of the 100's of possible Leica looks are do you have in mind?

[pico]

There are lens signatures, the most distinct from the earlier years. As pointed out above, all lens designers now have the same tools, but what they choose to demonstrate is different. In the earlier years it was as much an art as science, and different 'looks' were a goal.

 

Speaking of early lenses, in the film days we did the best with what we had. One street photo I cannot unsee from Bruce Davidson:

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Adam]

I have an Apo Summicron, Noctilux, and a few other "expensive lenses" which makes me feel special, but other than that feeling of ownership, there is nothing magical about them in my sense.

 

 

 

I think what is magical is the level of engineering put into such a relatively small package. You might get similar results on other systems, but size wise there is no comparison. Add to that the joy of a rangefinder and there is your magic - the art of taking the pic itself.

[pico]

I think what is magical is the level of engineering put into such a relatively small package. You might get similar results on other systems, but size wise there is no comparison. Add to that the joy of a rangefinder and there is your magic - the art of taking the pic itself.

 

Science is not magical. Progress is not always better. Leica lenses have become larger. Regardless, enjoy the fantasy.