Which Leica lens, new or old, gives you the best BANG for your buck?

[vaotix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any of the Summarit-M lenses for the most part (especially the new f/2.4 ones). They look almost as good as the crons for much cheaper. If you don't need that extra stop down for more light (which isn't a huge deal on digital anyway), then it's a fine option and the photos look great.

[Advertisement]

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

[ldhrads]

50 Summicron V4.  Best bang for my buck and I have a bunch of 50's!

[UliWer]

I am not sure that is true, David. Greater contrast means greater micro-contrast rather than overall image contrast. Flare lowers contrast but also obscures detail which cannot be recovered, hence lower dynamic range.

 

I will defer to convincing evidence.

I am not sure that is true, David. Greater contrast means greater micro-contrast rather than overall image contrast. Flare lowers contrast but also obscures detail which cannot be recovered, hence lower dynamic range.

 

I will defer to convincing evidence.

I agree with you that using the term „contrast“ may be misleading.

 

Though when it comes to dynamic range, the difference between „old“ and modern lenses may have a point. Older lens designs - perhaps even uncoated - show lower „overall image contrast“, i.e a lower range between the darkest and brightest parts of your photo. So when you take photos under very contrasty light this may be too much for the dynamic range of the sensor, if the lens completely reveals the contrast of the light.

 

I remember one extremely bright day in last October when the sun was rather low. The „overall image contrast“ between shadows and sunlit objects was also extreme. I used the 35mm Summilux asph - and I realized that it was the wrong lens, since everything appeared harsh even when the M10 managed to keep the highlights. An older lens with lower range of „ overall image contrast“ would have tamed the extreme lights and might have been the better solution. Though I learned to avoid old lenses under circumstances with „muddy“ light - everthing becomes even more muddy, so that you want to increase the contrast in your software, which is pointless as it contravenes the character of an old lens,

 

So when somebody asks, whether he should prefer an old lens design to a modern one, my answer would be: look at the conditions of light.

[UliWer]

Sorry, double posting. Deleted.

Edited February 13, 2018 by UliWer

[Abram]

I'll chime in and agree with some of you and state the 50mm Elmar-M is easily my best bang for the buck Leica lens. Mine cost me $575, it's my second one as I foolishly sold my first one last year. It's wonderfully compact, has a great rendering on film and digital and it even looks cool (mine's a chrome one).

[tsleica]

75mm Noct at 12K..a bargain...lol..