Is Leica glass still "the best out there"?

[Ko.Fe.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don’t print large, nor I sell my prints. I don’t need latest and sharpest. To me Leica Camera AG lenses have most pleasing colours among any others RF and some of them are nicely made.

As for others, non RF, where are lenses I prefer over Leica Camera AG lenses. Canon L series are my favourite for colours and rendering.

In digital, sensor is sometimes more important. I like Olympus colours and rendering over any digital Leica sensor, but image quality for details is not on pair.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ko.Fe.]

52 minutes ago, mmradman said:

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

 

Winogrand was fitting 28 Canon RF lenses on Leica for many years. Back then. 

These days I have fitted old Nikon SLR lenses on Leica digital RF and it is just better than nothing

[astrostl]

"best" again can vary, but if referring to optical quality, "sharpness", corrections, etc. it sure seems like Voigtlander's APO-Lanthar series is giving everyone a run for their money. Really hoping they make a VM version of the 50 in particular.

[farnz]

.

Edited May 11, 2020 by farnz

[jdlaing]

.

Edited May 11, 2020 by jdlaing

[Robert Blanko]

Am 10.5.2020 um 20:26 schrieb jaapv:

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

A phase AF does not care about surface patterns such as of fur or feathers and I have actually never experienced any issue in said respect over years with Nikon DSLRs and Z7, shooting a lot of Wildlife. Modern AFs combine phase and contrast AF.

[david strachan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The answer to the thread might be...sometimes yes, sometimes no.

😁

[DwF]

People are here because we appreciate what Leica has to offer. For me it is a sum of various factors that begin with the RF experience. The M cameras more than any other (including others from Leica) inspire me in a way that no other camera does, and have for decades. The colors I can get are wonderful, including with the M262, a camera (of the 240ilk) that took some criticism for it's less than faithful color rendering in the wake of the M9.  The files are for me easier to work with than Sony, Nikon or Fuji cameras I have worked with. To say nothing of form factor, a key aspect of the Leica to begin with.  It was in large part about size with the Barnack Leica.

The quality of Leica glass/lenses is a matter of record- "is it the best out there?" this question while made with good intent comes up short for me. Below is one kind of picture I like to make. Do I look at it and ask, hmm should I have a sharper lens? I don't because I know that the glass I have is better than I am, but also just thankful for the light we had last night and the fact that I was there to celebrate it with my friends Ron and the M262.

 

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!

M262 35 Summicron v4

 

[colint544]

The oldest lens I have is a 35mm Summaron F2.8. It was made in 1960. I've had it for quite a few years, certainly since the time they were very cheap to buy. It has a quality feel to its construction and operation that seems missing in my modern Leica lenses.

The Summaron is very very sharp, but with just a fraction less contrast than contemporary aspherical lenses, which means it's wonderful on my M Monochrom. The glass remains clear and haze-free, despite the fact that it's 60 years old. I don't think I would ever sell it.

But I read sometimes about old lenses having to be thrown away, unrepairable, because of separation. I understand that to be that the clear cement - which bonds certain elements together - has become brittle and failed. Is the cement a weak spot in a lens - albeit over many decades?

Leica used to make a 50mm F2 Elcan lens, sold to the military paired with a black chrome M4 camera. You see them come up for sale once in a while, always at eye-watering prices. But the thing with the Elcan lens was that it was made without any elements being cemented. That strikes me as a very special lens. Or are there disadvantages to such a lens design? 

[pgk]

5 minutes ago, colint544 said:

But I read sometimes about old lenses having to be thrown away, unrepairable, because of separation. I understand that to be that the clear cement - which bonds certain elements together - has become brittle and failed. Is the cement a weak spot in a lens - albeit over many decades?

Leica used to make a 50mm F2 Elcan lens, sold to the military paired with a black chrome M4 camera. You see them come up for sale once in a while, always at eye-watering prices. But the thing with the Elcan lens was that it was made without any elements being cemented. That strikes me as a very special lens. Or are there disadvantages to such a lens design? 

Originally elements were cemented together using a natural product - Canada Balsam. This ages, yellows and can sometimes separate. But it can be cleaned and in theory repaired - if you can find someone to do so. Most repairs will be carried out using modern adhesives though because Canada Balsam is no longer used to glue lenses together - it is effectively an obsolete process. However modern adhesives can also fail and are very difficult to deal with especially if partially failed (due to impact say) because lenses are then difficult to fully separate in order to repair. So a totally separated modern lens may be repairable but a partially separated might not be. The problem is knowing which adhesive has been used and I'm not sure when modern adhesives took over.

The problem with un-cemented lenses is that it produces more glass to air surfaces and this can lead to increased flare and reduced contrast (even with coating). Flare is the enemy of dynamic range so lower contrast lenses with greater veiling flare cannot record the same range of tonality as modern higher contrast lenses.

[a.noctilux]

Less is more ...

Concerning number of lens elements, since long, Leitz/Leica aims to lesser number as their best choices, when they can offer good enough IQ.

One example , Elmar 90mm began with four separate elements ( almost same as recent Macro-Elmar-M which is one of the best M lens) to have only three

in the last Elmar 90mm before stop making them.

Telyt 6.8/400 and 560mm, only two in one achromat lens, three in one for the "S" 6.3/800mm.

 

And many more examples in the past.

Edited May 12, 2020 by a.noctilux

[colint544]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

Originally elements were cemented together using a natural product - Canada Balsam. This ages, yellows and can sometimes separate. But it can be cleaned and in theory repaired - if you can find someone to do so. Most repairs will be carried out using modern adhesives though because Canada Balsam is no longer used to glue lenses together - it is effectively an obsolete process. However modern adhesives can also fail and are very difficult to deal with especially if partially failed (due to impact say) because lenses are then difficult to fully separate in order to repair. So a totally separated modern lens may be repairable but a partially separated might not be. The problem is knowing which adhesive has been used and I'm not sure when modern adhesives took over.

The problem with un-cemented lenses is that it produces more glass to air surfaces and this can lead to increased flare and reduced contrast (even with coating). Flare is the enemy of dynamic range so lower contrast lenses with greater veiling flare cannot record the same range of tonality as modern higher contrast lenses.

Very informative, Paul. Thank you!

[pgk]

I should have added that modern adhesives are often applied then UV cured. I had a 35mm v.4 Summicron with separation (total) which I got sorted through a contact in an optical business (they don't do this sort of thing normally!). It came back repaired and with a comment that the glass used for the elements was highly UV absorbent so it had had to have a high UV dosage to cure the adhesive! Unfortunately the lens finally proved irreparable due to damage to the 'engineering' plastic used in its construction and was sold for parts.

[adan]

A few additional points on cemented optics:

1) A cemented doublet was/is the way lens designers could/can approximate an aspheric surface, especially in the era before cheap(ish) molded ASPHs. Cementing two spherical lenses of different refractive indices creates one unit in which the total refractive index changes from the center of the lens out to the edges. In a microscope lens this is sometimes called a Merté surface (and we should remember that Leitz was dealing with microscope optics long before they began making camera lenses).

E.G. ()))( where red = refractive index A, purple = refractive index B and orange = cement. Note that through the center, the total refractive effect is mostly A, and at the edges, the total refractive effect is mostly B, with a smooth transition in between.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-systems-with-and-without-the-Merte-surface-A-Original-design-with-the_fig14_333723215

This is where the idea that "one ASPH surface can do the work of two spherical surfaces" comes from.

2) Canada Balsam (fir-tree sap) was a long-used optical cement, also dating back to before Leica lenses. It was/is used to cement together microscope slides (cover slip/subject/slide). It was suited to the task because its own refractive index is very close to glass, thus it didn't introduce any unexpected refraction effects of its own.

Scroll down: http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmay10/pp-andrew.html

(BTW, I don't think Canada Balsam was a factor in situating Leitz's North American factory in Midland, Canada - but I could be wrong ).

Leitz replaced Canada Balsam with a house-formulated epoxy cement called Absorban. As the name implies, Absorban itself absorbed or blocked UV light, acting as an internal UV filter. Absorban is a bit obscure, so I don't know when the change occured - likely around/following WW2, which produced many technological advances. Definitely in use before 1980.

BTW - the uncemented 90mm Elmarit-R/M (1980/91) had to use other means to correct its color/UV transmission, due to the lack of Absorban cement. (Puts, Lens Compendium, p. 174). So there is that downside.

3) It is interesting that the Leica Service Dept. still categorizes lens separation as "Balsam-fraktur," even though they haven't actually used balsam for many decades. And as pgk implies, Leica thinks it is un-economical to fix separation (clean off the remaining damaged cement, and then re-cement the elements). Just far too labor-intensive and fiddly to get the cement thickness exactly to original factory specs of 30-50 years ago - the service would cost 2-4x the value of most lenses old enough to experience it (essential, re-manufacture it completely at today's higher labor costs.)

My 1982 28mm Elmarit-M came back from Leica last summer with that diagnosis and prognosis. 😰 Even though it still generally imaged quite well, I just had to sell it at a steep discount.

Edited May 12, 2020 by adan

[Al Brown]

So - in your opinion - who is Leica's biggest competition in the RF lens area (quality wise)?

[adan]

Well, as a business, that would clearly be Cosina. They manufacture their own "Voigtlander" lens line (for over 20 years now) - and also most of the "Zeiss ZM" RF lenses. Their quality over that broad range varies to suit tastes and interests, from revivals of character-type lenses to modern-quality asphericals and the Zeiss designs.

They were the main competition that drove Leica's budget Summarit experiment. And above all, they have survived.

If one is willing to stick with film only, and somewhat-recent-but-defunct companies, the Kyocera/Contax-Zeiss "G" electronic-AF-rangefinder lenses are superb (but expensive to convert to M mount).

It is the sad case that trying to compete with Leica in the RF lens arena has, over the past 40 years, usually been a company's death-knell (Kyocera, Minolta, Konica - all gone).

[evikne]

I have just got my first non-Leica lens, a CV Nokton 35/1.4 II MC, and I the build quality was very surprising. The the aperture ring is 100 % free from play, and the aperture blades open up more precisely than any Leica lens I have tried before, including some brand new and expensive ones. 

The most important thing is of course the image quality, which also seems convincingly good, but it's still too early for me to judge it. 

[Al Brown]

15 hours ago, adan said:

It is the sad case that trying to compete with Leica in the RF lens arena has, over the past 40 years, usually been a company's death-knell (Kyocera, Minolta, Konica - all gone).

Minolta was working with Leica though, remeber the CL and some R zooms like the 70-200/4.5 Vario Elmar R.... They signed an agreement for tech co-op in 1972.
The Konica Hexar was an awesome player and Hexanons are still amazing lenses at a fraction of the cost.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[onasj]

Most Leica-M lenses are very good to spectacular.  Many other lens manufacturers including Sony, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider, Canon, and others also make lenses that are generally very good to spectacular.  This has been true for decades.  The Sony 135/1.8 GM will out-resolve just about any Leica lens, for example.

It's really at the intersection of a few characteristics that Leica lenses truly shine: compact (relatively speaking), manual focus, rangefinder-coupled, aesthetically and ergonomically beautiful, sometimes offering artistic rendering qualities (50/1.2, 75/1.5), sometimes offering technical perfection (50 APO, 75/1.25).  Only a relatively modest number of lenses live within the overlap of several of those qualities.  An unusual number of them are Leica-M lenses.  So if these characteristics appeal to you, then you'll love Leica glass.

 

[Dennis]

I have a 35 ZM Biogon and I like its performance very much. But If I had more money to spend at that time, I would probably have bought a 35 Cron Asph. Leica camera with a Leica lens, I think it's the best combo and have a better performance.

I doubt that a 21 CV Color Skopar f/4 have the same performance than a 21 SEM. I don't read MTF charts before to buy a lens, I have 1% technical knowledge about lenses performance details compared to Adan. But answering the OP question, IMHO, Leica is the best glass 🙌

But I'll ask you soon an opinion when I'll buy my first CV, hopefully soon  😂