Sharpest M Lenses

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually, I would be hard put to think of any "bad" lenses by Leica in the past either...

[Advertisement]

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

[james.liam]

Actually, I would be hard put to think of any "bad" lenses by Leica in the past either...

 

Leica 40/2.8 C

[lct]

Leica 40/2.8 C

 

Doesn't look that bad according to Marco Lavina: http://www.wetzlar-historica-italia.it/elmarit4028.html

I have no experience with this lens though but i read so many clueless comments about it that i'm tempted by this little ugly duckling. 

Bit  too expensive though even for this Tessar lover.

[JTLeica]

Good plan. You are probably right that you don’t need any new lenses.

 

However, what camera body are you putting these marvellous lenses on?

 

J

 

I have an M10. Used to have a 262.

[JTLeica]

Thanks ever so much for the help. I will check the 28 and 35 that I have this weekend, and chose the sharpest one... I am not fussed about the focal length so much, anything between 21 and 50 just to fill the gap.

 

I see that some of the Zeiss lenses are ultra sharp? Anyone have any experience with these. Part of this exercise is that I quite like researching things, regardless of whether I actually purchase or not... 

[ktmrider2]

Well, I have owned a lot of different Leica lenses starting back in 1975 with an M3 and 50 Summicron.  Of course, I did not know anything at the time other then it was a Leica and a rangefinder and much, much different then my Nikon F's which I had used for school and my short career as a photojournalist.

 

Presently, I own a variety of M mount lenses from all three manufacturers.  And I will be the first to admit that I am not willing to spend the amounts which Leica wants for their optics.  In 35 mm, I own both the 35f2.8 C-Biogon and the 35f1.2 Nokton.  I purchased the C-Biogon a couple years ago for use with the M9 on a 90 day trip to Europe involving some long hikes in Scotland and Spain on which I did not want to carry the 35f1.2.  I could not be happier with the results-not only sharp but with the Zeiss color pop.  Sean Reid places the 35 C-Biogon as the sharpest 35 he has tested.

 

When you consider that new it is still several hundred dollars less then the "cheap" Summarit, it is worth looking into.  I won't say don't buy Leica as it is hard to put a price on "pride of ownership" but there are great products from other optics manufacturers.  With a bit of searching, a mint used 35f2.8 C-Biogon can be found for $800.

 

Good luck with your hunt.  Honestly, you will have a very difficult time finding a "bad" 35mm lens.

[ktmrider2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In fact, there is a used 35f2.8 C Biogon listed on B&H's website as I write this.  They are rating it's condition as a "10" out of ten and B&H is  asking $799.  And if you order it, save yourself about $25 and get the Voightlander hood vice Zeiss.

Edited April 13, 2018 by ktmrider2

[MarkP]

Firstly, I agree with Pico's comment that you may not get the best resolution out of your lenses for landscape without a tripod. Any Leica lens on a tripod may well give you a better result than the 'sharpest' Leica lens hand-held.

 

I have or have had all the lenses I discuss below.

 

The other issue is whether you want to take a particularly expensive lenses on a hike. Are these hikes where your equipment is at higher risk of damage and does it bother you to take expensive lenses along with you?  Smaller and lighter lenses are of course usually slower lenses, which are also cheaper lenses so you could get a nice, compact 'cheap' set which, if it does get damaged or drenched you won't lose too much sleep. Once stopped down a bit then the resolution between most lenses becomes less off an issue, especially if hand held.

 

I agree with the others about considering the Zeiss lenses. You could get both (and possibly a 4.0/85 as well) for less than the cost of most new Leica lenses. I also really like their bayonet mount hoods. 

 

For cost, weight, and performance I don't think you could beat:

Zeiss Biogon T* 2.8/25 ZM 

Zeiss Planar T* 2.0/50 ZM

They are spectacularly good lenses (Ming Then compared did an interesting comparison between the Biogon and APO-Summicron)

 

The 2.8/35 Biogon is indeed a 'sharp' lens but is just too contrasty for my liking.

People have mentioned the 2.0/50 APO-Summicron. It is heavy (and of course expensive) for it's size but, although I do buy my lenses to use, I probably wouldn't take a $10K lens on a long hike esp if used hand-held. Day walk yes.

 

 

If you want Leica and minimal weight:

2.8/28 Elmarit

2.0/50 Sumicron ASPH or 2.5/50 Summmarit.

 

 

I don't have my Zeiss lenses any more and if I want a really light weight lens set, I tend to take my:

2.5/28 Elmarit ASPH, 2.8/50 Elmar-M,and maybe the 4.0/90 Macro-Elmar.

 

I just went on a 4-day walk in Tasmania where weight was an issue, and decided to take only two lenses and no tripod. I wanted them to be a bit faster if I was stuck in low light. Although I have my share of fast lenses I have not wanted the 28 Summilux due to: size/weight/VF blockage in one of my most used focal lengths; I think that in most circumstances 2.0 is plenty fast enough for a wider lens (although I do have a 21 Summilux, and I love the rendering of the 28 Summicron which is quite sympathetic with the 50 Summilux. 

So I took:
M10

2.0/28 Summicron ASPH

1.4/50 Summilux

It was a perfect combination for me :-)

[Csacwp]

From a technical standpoint, at optimum aperture, the sharpest M lenses are the 50 Apo, 90 Apo, and 135 Apo.

[Mute-on]

Since you already own the 28 Elmarit asph II, my newest and favourite (and sharpest) Leica lens, I’d say you were all set!

 

It also has basically zero distortion, and this will contribute to perceived sharpness and clarity, particularly in landscapes.

 

If you want to buy something, I’d say you are short another body. Grab an M2 and throw your 35 on that for one of the most pleasurable Leica experiences (from a using perspective).

 

Obviously if budget allows, another M10 to shoot with your second favourite focal length will open all kinds of photographic opportunities. No time spent changing lenses means more time to capture those fleeting moments. Works that way for me, anyway!

 

Cheers

 

J

[pico]

Firstly, I agree with Pico's comment that you may not get the best resolution out of your lenses for landscape without a tripod. Any Leica lens on a tripod may well give you a better result than the 'sharpest' Leica lens hand-held.

 

If one has a heart-beat he is unlikely to make a steady hand-held exposure at less than 1/500 of a second.

.

[lct]

Silent shutter may help as well. Here handheld at 1/60s, "thin" T-E 90/2.8, f/8. All M lenses are sharp enough at f/5.6 and on IMHO.

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by lct

[Ronazle]

If one has a heart-beat he is unlikely to make a steady hand-held exposure at less than 1/500 of a second.

.

While I am in agreement with the above, an alternative to a tripod is bracing against an object which does not have a heart beat. This does not completely eliminate the problem, but it goes a long ways to minimizing it. Also, setting the camera on a firm object and using the self-timer can help. Obviously, tripods offer advantages over my two suggestions. Regards, Ron

[ktmrider2]

Since we are talking about lens kits I will throw this out.  My light weight three lens kit is 35f2.8 C Biogon, 50 Summicron (current), and 90 Tele Elmarit.  My big and heavy lenses are the 35f1.2, 50f1.1 and 135f2.8.  Mix and match as needed.

[pgk]

Any Leica lens on a tripod may well give you a better result than the 'sharpest' Leica lens hand-held.

 

This is one of those oft repeated myths. It is perfectly possible to shoot landscapes handheld which are as 'sharp' as tripod taken shots. Believe me I know from experience. (Currently I own 10 tripods so I do use them too!).

[MarkP]

Paul, I agree.  I do a lot of landscape and often have no tripod as it can be quite inconvenient and restriciting. Most of my favourite landscape photos are indeed hand-held.  But it's a trade off once the shutter speed is low, or IQ is compromised with a higher ISO to allow an acceptable shutter speed handheld.

 

My point was that the OP was asking about the 'sharpest' lenses, and when hand-held whilst hiking there 'may well' (my words in my previous post, not id did not say 'does') be a trade off where the sharpest lens 'may well' not achieve it's potential so taking the sharpest lens may be less of an issue.

[JTLeica]

Get a Tele-Elmar 135. Wide open the difference to the 135 APO is hardly visible, one stop down and the lenses render equally.

Point taken thanks Jaap - Is the one with build in hood the same optically as the previous one?

[JTLeica]

As far as my lenses are concerned:

- 21/3.4 asph: OK

- 28/2.8 asph v2: No experience but at apertures you will probably use for landscapes (f/5.6 and on i guess), my 28/2.8 asph v1 is OK. Same, at those apertures, for my 28/2 v1 and v2.

- 35/2 asph non FLE: No experience. The FLE version is one of my sharper 35s ever but so is the much cheaper Biogon-C 35/2.8 as well.

- 50/1.4 asph: OK. Compared to 50/2 apo i cannot tell which is which at those apertures but i'm no pixel peeper.

- 75/1.4: It is not a soft lens at all at those apertures but how i feel it it has less acutance than 75/2 apo or 75/2.5. The latter is a bargain. No experience with 75/2.4.

- 90/2 apo: OK but if its bulk puts you off, the Macro-Elmar 90/4 is almost as sharp and is tiny by comparison. 

 

Awesome thank you.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JTLeica]

...I could not be happier with the results-not only sharp but with the Zeiss color pop.  Sean Reid places the 35 C-Biogon as the sharpest 35 he has tested.

 

When you consider that new it is still several hundred dollars less then the "cheap" Summarit, it is worth looking into.  I won't say don't buy Leica as it is hard to put a price on "pride of ownership" but there are great products from other optics manufacturers.  With a bit of searching, a mint used 35f2.8 C-Biogon can be found for $800.

 

Good luck with your hunt.  Honestly, you will have a very difficult time finding a "bad" 35mm lens.

Thank you, I actually live in the UK, but have a nice little set on contacts for some leica / zeiss glass. I will definitely consider some of the Zeiss lenses, I used to have an RTS and A7 with lots of contax lenses and they were lovely.

[Ecar]

Point taken thanks Jaap - Is the one with build in hood the same optically as the previous one?

 

Yes, the Tele-Elmar and the Tele-Elmar-M are optically the same.

Edited April 14, 2018 by Ecar