Why buy other than Leica lens for a Leica M system???!!

[yeeper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought into Leica to use Leica lenses, tried a few CV early on because I needed some screw mount 12,15, 25.   Optically not too bad on film, garbage on Leica M9. Mechanically they are bottom of the barrel.   Have not not anything but Leica since,

 

That's odd.  My 35mm Ultron LTM is superb for both sharpness and build quality.  The smoothness of the focus and iris is not matched by my Leica lenses.  I've had to have every Leica lens in for service at least once to tighten up things.  (Wobble on my 75 'Cron, loose iris on my '50 Lux ASPH, calibration and loose iris on my 50 'lux Mandler)

[Advertisement]

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

[sblutter]

You can add a tab - have put these on lenses that needed them - work great:

http://www.lenstab.com/

[Tailwagger]

That's odd.  My 35mm Ultron LTM is superb for both sharpness and build quality.  

 

I've had a similar experience with the 75mm Heliar 1.8.  Downside is that is a hefty piece and large.  But well built, smooth focus, quite sharp with an interesting signature. 

[rramesh]

Photography like art is all about experimentation. Use it, like it, enjoy it. Get tired, try something else.

[jaques]

I read through the first page of answers and no one said: because they are less expensive???!!

 

I jumped to the end after that... The question you posed seems quite wrong- the proper questions is why not buy other lenses?

 

I own the Voightlander 35mm f1.2 lens because it is NOT a Leica lens. If it was a Leica lens- it would have cost +/- 8x as much (and likely have been 'better') and I would never buy it. And in any case they don't make a 35 1.2... 

[jaques]

and can you get just exactly this result with any Leica lens? (debate ad nauseum):

 

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!

[uhoh7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With all do respect to other brands........I thought the essence of enjoying a Leica M system is when you use Leica lenses AND NOT other brands....thinking that Leica M lenses are specifically calibrated to match the best result for the system, BUT my QUESTION is Can we get BETTER result and Image Quality with non Leica  / other brand lenses?? Please share your best experience by indicating lens(es)

Why get hung up on labels? The M cameras are not good "because they are Leicas", they are good because Leica stepped up and made them good.

 

But we have to admit if you have plenty of money you can be very happy with "all Leica", both modern and legacy. With good copies of 8 element 35s and rigid crons, Mandler F1s and 75 Luxes, APO 50, 75, 90 and 135s and a SEM 21 and 28 Lux.....you won't be pineing for the Zeiss or whatever

 

Let's admit money is a big factor. ZM 35s are each top shelf and about half the Leica rate. CV superspeeds are a joy and 1/5 the the cost (Leica does not offer a 35/1.2)

 

Making "affordable Leicas" has been a big game for a long time and brought us Canon and Nikon. Celebrate the alternatives!

[Guest JMF]

Why get hung up on labels? The M cameras are not good "because they are Leicas", they are good because Leica stepped up and made them good.

 

But we have to admit if you have plenty of money you can be very happy with "all Leica", both modern and legacy. With good copies of 8 element 35s and rigid crons, Mandler F1s and 75 Luxes, APO 50, 75, 90 and 135s and a SEM 21 and 28 Lux.....you won't be pineing for the Zeiss or whatever

 

Let's admit money is a big factor. ZM 35s are each top shelf and about half the Leica rate. CV superspeeds are a joy and 1/5 the the cost (Leica does not offer a 35/1.2)

 

Making "affordable Leicas" has been a big game for a long time and brought us Canon and Nikon. Celebrate the alternatives!

 

 

+1.

Not to mention the use of old  lenses adapted to M mount to enjoy either on M film bodies or  the recent super sharp digital Ms .

[bocaburger]

If I ever get to the point where I'm such a good photographer that the differences between a CV lens or a Mandler-era Leica lens and a current edition makes a significant impact on the merit of my images, I guess I will have to upgrade. 

[cirke]

I bought a M nearly only for M lenses (and a 24x36 compact system)

[BJDrew]

If brand loyalty and emotion keep you from exploring the beautiful diversity of RF glass, you will be missing out.

 

Sure, you may finish that exploration and conclude that you prefer Leica lenses at all focal lengths and designs... But at least you know for sure.

[steppenw0lf]

Usually the glass is the stronger part of Leica. So I agree that it is not very wise to use other glass. Especially in the classic M primes I find other glass completely unnecessary. And no other brand is that small (Zeiss is sometimes simply ridiculous).

On the M246 I use only Leica lenses (but not always the latest craze, and only very rarely a summilux).

 

But there are exceptions - I like the old Contax zooms (almost a bit better than the Leica R zooms, but let's say about equal.) And they are very cheap now.

I was impressed by Otus lenses tests. But in the end too expensive and too heavy for practical use. (Prefer Leica R or M primes)

And I use Nikon zooms and specialty lenses (2.8/17-35, 2/135 DC, Micro 70-180) 

 

My main camera is SL, and since I have the 90-280 - the best tele zoom I ever had - I am not keen on using non-Leica glass anymore.

Would like to have 2/28 and 2/100 (and 2/50 makro) in SL AF mount. (currently use M and R glass to bridge the gap).

In a way I'm now hooked to Leica glass again (the new SL AF lenses).

 

P.S: older (used M and R primes) and non-1.4 Leica lenses are typically cheaper than the latest non-Leica lenses. Some users tend to ignore that ISO can be cranked up "before the end of the film roll". Easy hint: If budget is low, avoid summiluxes (and Apo50).  (Which lens did Cartier-Bresson use ? Exactly ! )

 

If the many Sony owners can afford the used Leica lenses, then a Leica M or SL owner can as well.  

Example: One of my best-loved lenses is the Elmar 4/135 from 1961  

(see photos:       http://www.l-camera-...43#entry3056586

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/253192-leica-sl-image-thread-post-your-examples-here/page-77?do=findComment&comment=3092426   )

[Xavier]

Diversity is good, and the availability of third party lenses brings this plus some price competition.

 

I recently started to build my M system (got an M9 in March, as I wanted a smaller alternative to the DSLR: loving it so far, though still getting used to the limitation in close focus and the framing where I am not so precise), and I would just not be where I am at without an abundant supply of alternatives. Given my DSLR background, I planned on eventually getting 21, 35 and 75 lenses, and I just got there, with a total budget of 2200€ :

 - ZM 35/2.8 biogon, bought used for 600€ (shape like new), has produced great results so far;

 - 75/2.5 Summarit, bought new for 900€ (yes, that ebay sale...), has produced great results so far;

 - ZM 21/2.8 biogon, just bought used for 700€ (shape like new), still under evaluation as it has just arrived, but the first impression is good.

I may eventually upgrade some, and possibly replace ZM lenses with Leica lenses, but at least I am getting to try out the M system at a very decent budget (and when I do upgrade, I am not expecting to lose too much €€€ on the lenses I would sell back). For comparison, I once saw a 21 SEM for sale at 1850€ and considered it as it was my dream 21, but that was the cost of almost the three lenses!

[jaapv]

You made a good pick in your Zeiss lenses, and I would put my money towards branching out instead of upgrading.

Personally I like the Zeiss 21 better than the Leica offerings, and the 35 is as good as the Summicron 35 asph, albeit a bit more contrasty.

 

Brand loyalty is good for Leica, not so much so for your photography.

[edwardkaraa]

I think Leica M owners tend to believe that Leica M glass is superior to Zeiss due to reputation and price.

 

One thing for sure, Leica pricing is undeniably superior

 

One more advantage that I can think of is miniaturization.

 

One debatable advantage is build quality, because while Leica lenses feel very nicely built, they do suffer as much or even more mechanical design problems than ZM and ZV lenses. For example the 28 cron front element, 50 lux loose hood screw, 35 FLE front element, 35 cron glued elements, etc. It is also more common to get less than ideally calibrated lenses out of factory.

 

As for optical quality, in general, ZV lenses are not as good, but ZM lenses, in their limited offer compared to Leica's much wider repertoire, are mostly as good or even better than M equivalents. Many Leica M lenses indeed suffer optically from some compromises to make them smaller, while the ZM being larger have none of the compromises.

 

I can single out the following ZM as being optically superb: ZM 15/2.8,18/4, 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 35/1.4, 35/2, 35/2.8, 50/2, 85/4, 85/2.

[ralphh]

I just bought some crazy old 85mm Russian lens on eBay that probably won't even focus properly - it arrives on Thursday.  Will it be "better" than my Modern Leica 90mm?  Of course not!  Will it produce photos that are unique and interesting.  Hopefully!

[spydrxx]

There are repairpersons who specialize in shimming FSU lenses so they focus properly on LTM/M mounts. Of course some focus fine, while others may not, either due to different tolerances or different rates of advance on the cam.

[steppenw0lf]

I think Leica M owners tend to believe that Leica M glass is superior to Zeiss due to reputation and price.

 

One thing for sure, Leica pricing is undeniably superior

 

One more advantage that I can think of is miniaturization.

 

One debatable advantage is build quality, because while Leica lenses feel very nicely built, they do suffer as much or even more mechanical design problems than ZM and ZV lenses. For example the 28 cron front element, 50 lux loose hood screw, 35 FLE front element, 35 cron glued elements, etc. It is also more common to get less than ideally calibrated lenses out of factory.

 

As for optical quality, in general, ZV lenses are not as good, but ZM lenses, in their limited offer compared to Leica's much wider repertoire, are mostly as good or even better than M equivalents. Many Leica M lenses indeed suffer optically from some compromises to make them smaller, while the ZM being larger have none of the compromises.

 

I can single out the following ZM as being optically superb: ZM 15/2.8,18/4, 21/2.8, 25/2.8, 35/1.4, 35/2, 35/2.8, 50/2, 85/4, 85/2.

 

 

And Zeiss owners tend to believe that Zeiss glass is superior. And Canon users tend to believe Canon glass is superior. And Otus owners tend to believe Otus glass is superior.  And Nikon owners tend to believe Nikon glass is superior and Sony owners ...

What a surprise and what a deep insight !     

 

Cartier-Bresson had a really shitty equipment compared to what you own - whatever brand you own. Why don't you take photos instead of discussing the merits of lenses ? Sitting here in front of the screen will never make you better than HCB, whatever you spend on equipment.

The equipment is not what makes a good photo !    Do not lose yourself in GAS and futile discussion.   Bye !!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[edwardkaraa]

And Zeiss owners tend to believe that Zeiss glass is superior. And Canon users tend to believe Canon glass is superior. And Otus owners tend to believe Otus glass is superior. And Nikon owners tend to believe Nikon glass is superior and Sony owners ...

What a surprise and what a deep insight !

Your depth of analysis is mind blowing yourself. How long did it take you to come up with this masterpiece of satire?

[lct]

Your depth of analysis is mind blowing yourself. How long did it take you to come up with this masterpiece of satire?

 

It took me even less to realize that i would never be the other Cartier Bresson so i went to the LUF to find a bit of consolation