What's the point of shooting with other makes of lenses on your M camera?

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica M lenses are the holy grail - they are legendary in the world of photography.  They are most likely without equal.  M lenses are the reason so many photographers come to the M system.

So here's a question:  What's the point of shooting with other makes of lenses on your M camera?  Isn't that sort of defeating the purpose of owning and using M cameras?

Before people start to get offended/defensive/outraged or commence to flinging poo, this question is not intended to bash lenses other than M lenses and it is not a question based in snobbery or elitism.  At one point, I owned and used a Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 ASPH v.1; I sold it off because I didn't use it much (and ended up kicking myself).  I am considering buying the current  Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.2 ASPH v.3 lens, wven thouugh it is not a Leica M lens.

So my question remains:  For you, what's the point of shooting with other makes of lenses on your M camera?

Edited November 7, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[FrozenInTime]

Leica has nothing that gives the wide open look, general flexibility and not too big-ness of the Voigtlander 40/1.2. My Goldilocks lens.

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!

I used to struggle switching between Leica 35/1.4 , 50/1.4 and 50/0.95 lenses ; now I find I need just one lens 90% of the time, so I bought two 🙂 

[monoxy]

The point or reason?

The reason might be aesthethic, compactness or maybe, just maybe about this weird thing called money..which might be finite for most people in this planet. Among them some people might happen to love using M bodies for their photography, and might love having high quality lenses in relatively affordable price ranges.

 

 

[pippy]

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

So here's a question:  What's the point of shooting with other makes of lenses on your M camera?...

Because the optical formulae of different lenses 'draw / render' differently.

P.

Edited November 8, 2020 by pippy

[astrostl]

The point is to take photographs with them. While I'm pretty sure that is also the intent of the M system, I don't care a lot about someone else's intent regarding something I own.

[jdlaing]

Because I can.

[NICOFRANCA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it's fun trying out different lenses from other brands. I have a 35 Biogon and got the opportunity for a decent deal on a Cron. Wanted the Cron for so long, so I finally pulled the trigger. Not for all, but for me the Zeiss beats it in every way. I would have never have known that if I didn't try. With a rangefinder, there really is not much of a choice, so it's Leica or bust. With lenses that is not the case. 

[TomB_tx]

I don't use Leica for the lenses - but because it is the only true digital rangefinder that lets me enjoy taking pictures the same way I have for 50+ years. Thus I splurged my retirement bonus on the M9, then again on the M10. The last film camera I bought was a Zeiss Ikon ZM instead of an M7 - and if Zeiss had made a digital version I likely would have tried it. The ZM lenses paired nicely with the Ikon.

For me the main advantage of Leica M lenses is the small size - so as Leica lenses have grown in size I've passed on them, and either kept my 1960s-70s models or bought 2.5 Summarits instead. And for speed got the CV 35 1.4 Nokton (v2) for its size and great handling. I've even enjoyed some of the far East M lenses, which help stretch my retirement budget that I blew for the M10 body.

[farnz]

I view lenses as 'paint brushes' where each will provide a different rendering of the same subject owing to the lens computation, different glass formulations used, different element coatings, age etc.  Some subjects suit a higher-contrast, higher acutance rendering of, say, a modern Leica or Zeiss lens owing to the degree of fine detail in the subject while other subjects suit a 'gentler', lower-contrast rendering of, say, a 1940's Contax lens or a Canon 50/1.2 screw mount lens.

I like to have a wide collection of 'brushes' to do justice to, or render differently, certain subjects, which is why I use lenses from a variety of manufacturers on my Leica M cameras.

Pete.

Edited November 8, 2020 by farnz

[gotium]

Some of Leica's lenses are just wonderful. 

But some are not as good as others. 

In my opinion, Zeiss makes THREE 35 mm M mounts that can match anything Leica makes at that focal length...as far as IQ goes at least. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by gotium

[farnz]

6 minutes ago, gotium said:

In my opinion, Zeiss makes THREE 35 mm M mounts that are better than anything Leica makes at the same focal length

<sigh> There's that word "better" again.  What does it actually mean? Higher acutance, greater resolution, more contrast, lighter, less expensive, more attractive, preferred haptic, superior value retention, something else?  (And as a clue, some of these qualities are conflicting so "All of them" doesn't work.)

Btw, it's intended to be a rhetorical question so it's not aimed at you or anybody else, Gotium.

Pete.

[lct]

Because IQ, size and/or handling are different or better (sorry farnz)  for me. Where can i find a modern lens with similar IQ and size as a Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph with less flaws for example? Or a 35/2 asph as compact as a Summicron 35/2 pre-asph? Or a better (sorry again) 35/2.8? Or a 50/2 with similar size and IQ but less flare than a Summicron 50/2 v5? Or a 35mm lens allowing to focus closer than 0.7m? Or simply a 12mm or 15mm lens? Glad to have VM and ZM lenses for that but also Minolta, Konica and others.

[gotium]

1 hour ago, farnz said:

<sigh> There's that word "better" again.  What does it actually mean? Higher acutance, greater resolution, more contrast, lighter, less expensive, more attractive, preferred haptic, superior value retention, something else?  (And as a clue, some of these qualities are conflicting so "All of them" doesn't work.)

Btw, it's intended to be a rhetorical question so it's not aimed at you or anybody else, Gotium.

Pete.

Ha!

You got me in those few seconds between submitting and editing. 

I thought better of saying better, and changed it to "match":

"in my opinion" and "as far as IQ goes" 

Hope that's "better" <groan>

Edited November 8, 2020 by gotium

[Raymondl]

I didn’t get Leica because I thought .. oh yeah.. those lenses are amazing... looking at the competition (sigma,zeiss etc) the modern optics are all “fantastic” and they can even offer clinical edge to edge sharpness, if that’s what you prioritise. 

I got Leica for the “digital range finder experience”.. I got Leica lenses (“vintage”) to get the “full experience”... and yes i shoot with non Leica M lenses like the 7artisans/TTartisans because it’s my choice.. as at times..I don’t want to pay the premium to get the full experience (I.e diminishing return).. but rather put that fund towards an exotic holiday to take photos (haha maybe not right now)  

I don’t use the Leica M for all shooting occasions as sometimes I find it impractical, and there are an abundance of many good camera offerings in a small form factor.. for a fraction of the price.... sure it’s not a Leica but at the end of the day it’s my choice. 

[Dennis]

My reasons:

#1: Because they are just other options available for M mount. And to choose the best fits according to our needs and budget, it's always welcome and appreciated.

#2: I don't have experience yet in Leica lenses. But sometimes, reading many reviews out there, the IQ of some other brand is just wow. I own the Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon, which is incredible. And I know many users prefer it over other Leica options.  

#3: Maybe the most common option. Because to get a 99% IQ/performance/wow lens (just a % number, to pretend), you need to pay $$$. While to get a 75-95% PRE-wow lens, you can spend $ only. It's a game-changer. 

With a 35 Zeiss and, recently, a TT Artisan, I spent approx USD 1,500 for both. I probably would have bought a brand new 35 Summicron Asph. But no budget.

But I still go out and shoot a lot, and I love it. I can argue why some users use a 70 years old lens on a brand new modern M10M? But it's working, for them. And we all are happy to see their photos. I have an $8k camera with a Chinese $450, and I like what they produce together.

[raizans]

Lol, aren't the attitudes in the OP's first two paragraphs the ones we should be looking at more closely?

[BradS]

6 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Leica M lenses are the holy grail - they are legendary in the world of photography.  They are most likely without equal. 

Apparently, not everyone shares this opinion.

Personally, I prefer the Zeiss ZM lenses. 

[Raymondl]

40 minutes ago, raizans said:

Lol, aren't the attitudes in the OP's first two paragraphs the ones we should be looking at more closely?

It’s an interesting point.

I guess everything is “relative”.. if you shoot with Leica M and have a comprehensive (>25+ ?) worth over $100,000 USD (current market) ...stored in a few dry cabinet(s) .. you will have a fairly strong preference when it comes to lenses..

after all ... Leica lenses always appreciate in value right ? .. unlike any of the other lens ..nikkor/canon/zeiss/voigtlander ...right? 

 

[adan]

6 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Leica M lenses are the holy grail - they are legendary in the world of photography.  They are most likely without equal.  M lenses are the reason so many photographers come to the M system.

So here's a question:  What's the point of shooting with other makes of lenses on your M camera?  Isn't that sort of defeating the purpose of owning and using M cameras?.....

I disagree with both of the premises stated above. (I say that in the same friendly fashion as you asked it - no offense intended)

I don't consider Leica/Leitz lenses - as a class - to be "mostly without equal." And thus my purpose in using M cameras has never had much to do with using Leica lenses.

To expand a bit on that, there are some Leitz/Leica lenses that are (or were, sometime in the past 60 years) class-leading, at least as regards this or that aspect of image quality. Or are equalled by comparable lenses, but achieve equality in a smaller size or weight. Or have some other practical advantage, such as minimum focus distance, or factory 6-bit coding.

There was certainly a period about 1965-1975 when the M wide-angles (21/28/35, maybe 50mm) beat the competing lenses available for SLRs (Nikon/Canon/Zeiss having mostly abandoned interchangeable-lens rangefinders). Simply due to the learning curve in designing really good SLR-friendly wide-angles with the new retrofocus technology required (and Leitz IQ suffered in the 21/28 range when Leitz attempted their first M retrofocus lenses, to allow ttl metering.) And that skips the fact that the original 21 Super-Angulons were actually Schneider lenses in Leica clothing.

But  that accurate reputation from 55 years ago is rather out-of-date now.

Even as recently as 2001, I was rather disappointed with the Leica clarity, resolution and flare-proneness when comparing the then-available Leica 21 f/2.8 Elmarit-M and 90mm Elmarit-M, Tele-Elmarit-M and 90 Summicron-M v.3 to the Zeiss 21 Biogon-G T* and 90mm f/2.8 Sonnar-G T* for the compact AF-mirrorless G system.

Nevertheless - I switched to using a Leica M4-2. Even with those "disappointing" lenses.

Which brings up my second point. I use Leica Ms exactly, precisely and soley for the reliable, manual, split-image, rangefinder focusing. And the compact size/weight and relative silence/shake and such that existed before mirrorless made some inroads in those areas. The Contax-G cameras shared many of those same virtues, but suffered from kludgy focusing (AF or "manual") that let down their truly excellent optics in fast-moving situations.

Better a slightly IQ-compromised picture of the moment I want to capture, than a perfect image of the non-moment 2 seconds later.

Today I (still) use: 21 Elmarit-M, 28 Elmarit-M v.3, 35 CV Nokton Classic f/1.4 v.2, 75 f/1.5 Nokton Classic, 90mm Summicron-M v.3, and 135mm Tele-Elmar.

For reasons of color rendering I use the otherwise less-than-perfect 1980s Leitz Canada 21/28/90. I use the C/V 35 as the lightest and most compact 35 f/1.4 that focuses to 0.7m. I use the 75 Nokton f/1.5 for similar reasons - plus the fact that it has the best center performance at f/1.4-ish of any M lens 35-50-75 I've ever used. The C/V color is only slightly redder than the Canadian Leitzes. Finally, the Mandler-designed, German-built 135 TE has always been the most amazing "cheap thrill" in the Leica-M universe - but after trying the 75 Nokton, someday I'd like to see what Nakano might come up with.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[250swb]

9 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Leica M lenses are the holy grail - they are legendary in the world of photography.  They are most likely without equal.  M lenses are the reason so many photographers come to the M system.

 

I have a 35mm Summicron ASPH and hate it's rendering, I only keep it because one day I may wake up and it's cured itself, but instead it will only have lost it's lens cap again. I'd use almost anything except that. I have a Voigtlander 75mm Heliar and love it, as good as the 75mm Elmarit according to Sean Reid's review and I can't see a reason to contradict him. I think after using Leica's for forty years I get both weary and sceptical of Leica marketing and the auto acceptance of it. A 50mm Summilux is my 'best lens ever', but mostly I like to use my Voigtlander Skopar's. I suppose the key to 'like or dislike' is having a datum point, and I'm lucky to have owned and sold many Leica lenses over the years, and they are my datum point. But there's more than elite optical reasons to like one lens over another and in my weary state the ideas that companies such as Voigtlander are pursuing excite me and Leica lenses don't so much, as simple as that.

Edited November 8, 2020 by 250swb