Is Leica glass still "the best out there"?

[Al Brown]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would love to hear your opinion. The phrase was very popular for decades, is it still a fact? Light years ahead of competition or already surpassed by competition? What glass is the very best in 2020? What makes lenses "the best out there"?

[pgk]

Depends. You will need to define what you mean or think that "the best out there' is. Its not simple.

[Advertisement]

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

[Beena22]

I guess one metric would be - are Leica lenses worth the money compared to the competition, such as Zeiss for example?  Do Leica lenses offer the significant bump in quality that their price point would suggest?

Edited May 10, 2020 by Beena22

[jaeger]

Many beat leica's image quality few decades ago (I believe since the 80s).  But having its small size and rangefinder compatible make it unique. 

Edited May 10, 2020 by jaeger

[Beena22]

17 minutes ago, jaeger said:

Many beat leica's image quality few decades ago (I believe since the 80s).  But having its small size and rangefinder compatible make it unique. 

Most M-mount lenses are small though so they are not unique in that respect.  My Voigtlander Nokton Classic is tiny on my M9.

[spydrxx]

I'll take a stab at the question. Assuming the op is speaking about 35mm rangefinder lenses, I'd say Leica is a premier provider, but depending on personal preferences, it has equal competition in several offerings by other manufacturers. By equal competition, I mean in terms of optical performance. I think Leica still has a slight edge in terms of finishing and mechanical operation/construction. Are Leica lenses worth the price...only your pocketbook will tell!

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This post is in the M forum, and the RF market is small. On a broader scale, computer design along with in-body software enhancements have largely equalized the field, notably for mirrorless systems. Toni Felsner, product manager for the S and SL systems, has said that S lenses are necessarily optically corrected by hardware design; otherwise distortions would show in the optical VF.  For mirrorless, there’s more room for software enhancements. And in today’s world, quality lenses involve more than glass elements; there are AF mechanisms, OIS, etc, which can affect overall performance and assessment.  And even if the discussion is narrowed to IQ, there are many criteria involved, and a healthy debate over what constitutes ‘the best’. Not a simple answer, but Leica continues to have a deserved reputation for stellar lenses overall, with virtually no duds.

Jeff

 

[TomB_tx]

Lens designers optimize characteristics that they think are most important. Even within Leitz there have been differences, as between Wetzlar and Midland in the 1960s, where Midland optimized different parameters than were traditional at Wetzlar. Even so, all Leitz lenses had a certain "look" to the images that were different than most others - a look that many of us find more pleasing, even if others may have greater apparent sharpness or higher contrast. I remember a Leitz sales Rep sorting through color slides for an exhibit submitted by our college, where he successfully sorted out those not by Leitz lenses (all looked good to me). His eye was trained to look for the characteristics Leitz emphasized. 

I still tend to prefer the Leitz lenses of the 1960s & 70s although modern users will more like the latest generation of lenses with are "snappier" with different gradations around the main subject sharpness. 

Perhaps younger users are more influenced by the look of digital screens on their devices and TVs, while we grew up with the more gentle renditions of film and CRT TVs.

Different ideas of what is "best."

[lct]

Still the best compact lenses i believe but ZM and CV lenses are not far.

[Robert Blanko]

I think that this would strongly depend on the intended purpose. I‘ve never heard about a 400/2.8 AF lens from Leica for sports and wildlife.

And for those lenses which can be mounted on Leica cameras, the rating might strongly depend on personal perception and preferences. What is the „best bokeh“? Maybe even this would depend on purpose.

In terms of build quality and and satisfaction of the owners of Leica glass, Leica is IMHO however above average...

[jaapv]

AF is highly overrated for wildlife...

[Robert Blanko]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

AF is highly overrated for wildlife...

Well, this would depend on the animal. For flying birds of prey it is indispensible in most cases.

[jaapv]

Maybe, but AF fails on fur and on the feathers of sitting birds. 

[adan]

I'd say the really premium Leica M lenses (some approaching or exceeding 5-figure prices) still lead the pack. 90mm f/1.5 Summilux vs. Canon 85mm f/1.2 (II), for example.

MTF charts:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=397

https://leicarumors.com/2019/12/23/leica-summilux-m-90-mm-f-1-5-asph-lens-additional-coverage.aspx/

Or (20-plus-year-old) 90 APO-Summicron vs. Canon EOS 85 f/1.8 vs. Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 S (charts)

https://photographylife.com/lenses/leica-apo-summicron-m-90mm-f2-asph

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx?Lens=106

https://photographylife.com/news/nikon-z-85mm-f-1-8-s-announcement

Add to those (at least) the 75 Noctilux, 75 APO-Summicron and 50 APO-Summicron

In some cases the optical performance is very close overall, depending on where and what one looks for in the picture. E.G. 35 Summilux-M f/1.4 vs. Canon EOS 35 f/1.4 (corners contrastier but with more color fringing in the Canon, lower contrast but with less fringing everywhere with the Leica-M, resolution ~equal). But of course one can fit three of the Leica-M lens inside the one Canon lens.

Then there is construction quality - solid interlocked brass and aluminum (Leica) vs a polycarbonate shell over a metal "space frame" (most others). No space wasted on electronics.

Don't know about Sonys - for me, EVF's are something that only happen to other people.

________

For my purposes, the "best out there" means good resolution and edge contrast, combined with very moderate global contrast and subdued reds. I like to get a histogram in bright sunlight (with deep shadows) that does not run off the ends (blocked shadows and/or blown highlights) so I stick with the 1980s-era Canadian M lenses wherever possible (21/28/90). Adobe's sharpening tools work better than their highlight/shadow recovery tools.

"If it don't say "Leitz," it ain't so "Nitze."

Edited May 10, 2020 by adan

[darylgo]

Given enough size and glass elements, lenses can be made to render extremely fine detail with good contrast. That’s what I see from Sigma (40mm f1.4), Canon (35mm f1.4), Zeiss Otus and Leica SL (50mm F1.4).   I see Leica M lenses also getting larger but quite diminutive by comparison.  Leica says they use expensive glass to achieve these results. Combined with this size difference, hand built, all mechanical (no worries about abandoned electronics), and last but not least the best of most manufacturers can’t get the corners to resolve the detail I get with generation old designs such as the 90  Apo, either wide open or stopped down.   

[matthewm2]

I think it would be difficult to make any type of comparison or render any valuable opinion with a question this broad. All you're going to get is some boiler plate, and quite frankly boring, statement like, "depends on what you're shooting. Horses for courses."

[pgk]

Leica make some superlative optical designs which are very versatile in that they can still be used on either digital or film cameras to give extremely good results. Their size, engineering and potential long life, to say nothing of maintained value, place them apart from any of their competitors. If this fulfils your requirement of being the 'best' then yes, they are. If on the other hand you are obsessed by technical numbers or review scores then there may well be others which surpass them. So as I originally said, its not simple.

[a.noctilux]

20 hours ago, Al Brown said:

Would love to hear your opinion. The phrase was very popular for decades, is it still a fact? Light years ahead of competition or already surpassed by competition? What glass is the very best in 2020? What makes lenses "the best out there"?

Short cut is

 

... users know which lens is best for the job (serious users of course) ,

not average user who will rely on "reputed best lens" to make their best pictures.

The best lens can not always offer the best out of it, if it's not used carrefully as the designer intended.

 

In the past Master Photographers used "average" gear to obtain iconic images which in my view (difficult to prove) would not becoming better

with "better/best" gear.

 

[mmradman]

21 hours ago, jaeger said:

Many beat leica's image quality few decades ago (I believe since the 80s).  But having its small size and rangefinder compatible make it unique. 

Perhaps it is not well known story among the Leica aficionados.  Back in the early 1950s during the Korean War Nikkor lenses fitted to Leica RF camera were admired by the American photographer David Douglas Duncan, he subsequently made Nikon the household name it is today.  Already by the late 1950s Nikon has abandoned its RF system and concentrated on the development of the SLR only, as we know SLR require different lens design.

https://www.nikonownermagazine.com/findout/magazine/issue_015/history.php

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[earleygallery]

The answer is yes, no, maybe, depends.