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

[pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Herr Barnack:

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

Don't be silly. M cameras are tools, not grails. So are lenses, Leica or otherwise. There appears to be only one maker of digital rangefinder cameras (possibly two) and there are many more makers of lenses. Some lenses are better suited to a particular task than others. 

I, at least, choose my tools by what they make, not by their make.

[Narsuitus]

10 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

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?

For me, the point of shooting with any lens is to obtain the image quality I desire.

I have eight Zeiss lenses that I use on my camera bodies because these Zeiss lenses give me the image quality I desire.

For my Leica M camera body, I have three M-mount lenses; one Zeiss and two Leica. All three lenses give me the image quality I desire.

[evikne]

I am probably stupid, because even though I can't afford it, I will only use Leica lenses. There is something with the feeling of having "the real thing". I recently tried the CV Nokton Classic 35mm f/1.4 MC II, and even though it was better than the Leica 35mm pre-ASPH Summicron and Summilux in almost every aspects, I sold it again very quickly, just because it wasn't "Leica".

The CV 35mm f/1.2 III and others are also "annoyingly" good, and I like very much the design with the scalloped focus rings.

So my choices are obviously not so much driven by reason, but rather by emotions.

[pedaes]

8 minutes ago, evikne said:

rather by emotions

That is so honest. Simples!

Edited November 8, 2020 by pedaes

[pop]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb evikne:

So my choices are obviously not so much driven by reason, but rather by emotions.

No objection, of course.

[rramesh]

You use what works. Just like a brush to a painter, a camera is to a photographer.
 

It’s the result that matters. 
 

Frankly, if shown a great picture, most people will neither be able to identify the camera nor lens used. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by rramesh

[ktmrider2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have lenses from Leica, Zeiss and Voightlander including duplicate focal lengths.   Don't dwell very much as to which is on the camera as long as it is the focal length desired.  Think it is pretty silly saying things like "Only Leica lenses on Leica cameras."  Will pick the lens for the situation ie travel means small and light, available light means fastest lens I own in the focal length I wish to use, etc.

DDD stunned the world with the images he produced for LIFE of Marines in Korea using Nikon lenses on his Leica.  Don't really think his images would have been any better with Leica lenses vs Nikon lenses or even Zeiss lenses.  Photography should be about the photos not the tools.  Reason I use Leica is the viewfinder/rangefinder combo.  My favorite is the M2 simply due to the simplicity of the viewfinder. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by ktmrider2

[spydrxx]

Versatility, flexibility, availability, cost.

[Dennis]

5 hours ago, evikne said:

The CV 35mm f/1.2 III and others are also "annoyingly" good, and I like very much the design with the scalloped focus rings.

So my choices are obviously not so much driven by reason, but rather by emotions.

I'm not talking about IQ here, but for example I do prefer 100 times the TT 35/1.5 focus tab rather than the small focus knob of the Zeiss Biogon.

Sometimes it's not only about IQ. It could be design, features, rendering, price, so mayn factors.

[logan2z]

For better or worse, I think I fall into the 'emotional' rather than 'logical' camp. 

When I was looking to add a 50mm lens to my kit I considered one of the Zeiss lenses but my heart really wanted a Leica.  Leica glass on a Leica camera just felt right to me.  So I bought a 50mm Summicron v5 and have no regrets (no flare yet, yay!).  The lens is super compact and feels so well made and solid.  It has the added benefit of value retention, although I don't really sell camera gear so it doesn't matter very much. 

I have Zeiss-made lenses for my Hasselblad 500 C/M and think they perform great, so I have little doubt that the Zeiss M-mount lenses are also of terrific quality.  And who knows, I might try one down the road just to experience them first hand.  Prices are a lot more reasonable too.  But, for now, I'm firmly in the Leica lens camp as long as I can continue to afford them.  Other than the affect on my bank account, I don't see any downside to buying them.

[cboy]

To the Op its proabably (apart from price haha)a combination of use case and general curiosity from whether its the way it renders to the excitement of new technology/ new glass. Perhaps someone is building a kit and wants to try a new focal length but doesnt want to fully commit and just wants to give it try from good reviews that people post up here

Edited November 9, 2020 by cboy

[Ouroboros]

On 11/7/2020 at 11:19 PM, Herr Barnack said:

Leica M lenses are the holy grail - they are legendary in the world of photography.  

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?

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

No, Leica lenses are not the 'Holy Grail' (silly analogy, imo). I use cameras and lenses to create images, not to congratulate myself on stuff I own.

Once in a while, far too infrequently these days, Leica produce a lens that is genuinely different with recognisable qualities that are clearly apparent in both digital and film photography and unlike anything else on offer.  When that happens, I may buy it if I can afford it.  The last time it did happen was when Leica released the 28mm summaron-m and I bought one because I like it's signature, just as I bought a CV 12mm ltm on release (and still use) and, more recently, a KEKS body cap lens for point and shoot pocketability.

I leave 'Holy Grail' lenses to people who deserve them,  I'm more interested in photographers and photography.

[lct]

Sure M lenses used to be the holy grail in the past and they are still the very best among compact lenses IMHO but aside from Minolta (Rokkor 28/2.8, 40/2 & 90/4) they were the only lenses i could use w/o adapter on my M cameras. Since then Cosina did a great job with its ZM and VM lenses and it is a good thing for photography.

[pedaes]

20 hours ago, ktmrider2 said:

using Nikon lenses on his Leica.

I think he, and other photo-journalists at the time, used Nikon lens because they considered them better than their Leica lenses.

[Raymondl]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

I think he, and other photo-journalists at the time, used Nikon lens because they considered them better than their Leica lenses.

I am assuming “DDD” is the person mentioned in this article. https://imaging.nikon.com/history/story/0036/index.htm

[pgk]

On 11/7/2020 at 11:19 PM, 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 my question remains:  For you, what's the point of shooting with other makes of lenses on your M camera?

Loaded question. For a start not all Leica M lenses were made by Leica. Leica's own lenses have been designed by a variety of different people, some in Germany and some in Canada, and they have been assembled in both countries and Portugal too. So there is variety within the lenses produced by Leica. Some are outstanding lenses or were when new, and some are appreciated for their flaws now that their specifications have been bettered. 'Legendary' and 'without equal' have been applied to other maker's lenses too (the Not-Nikkor as an example). I've owned a few none Leica M lenses but have settled on a few of Leica's own lenses for my 'M system' basically because I like them most of all the lenses I've tried and owned. In some cases they are far from being the 'best' of even Leica's own lenses. But there are some lenses made by or adapted by others which Leica cannot supply especially at the extreme wide end (9mm Laowa, 10mm Voigtlander, etc.) so they are without equal too. The point of shooting with other makes of lenses depends on the individual and as can be seen from the responses varies considerably. In my case I've settled on Leica's own lenses but others have clearly made different decisions. We are all different fortunately and our tastes are well catered for in terms of M fit lenses.

[BrianS]

9 hours ago, pedaes said:

I think he, and other photo-journalists at the time, used Nikon lens because they considered them better than their Leica lenses.

David Douglas Duncan found that the Leica 35/3.5 was better than the Nikkor 3.5cm F3.5, but found the Nikkor 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4 better than his Leica equivalents. 

These lenses are from the same batches in production when DDD visited Nikon. 

I would not call these a "Holy Grail", but it did take me 20 years to collect these.

The 3.5cm F3.5 Nikkor is a 4-element design, similar to the older Elmar 3.5cm F3.5. This one is very good, I had one before that was not very sharp. The Leica Summaron is better, Nikon later brought out the 3.5cm F2.5 that is similar to the Summaron.

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!

Edited November 9, 2020 by BrianS

[Dave Steele]

What is actually nice about the Leica M mount is that there are so many options.  If Leica M cameras were limited only to proprietary lenses, I would never have bought one (actually, three now).  I think we all fall into the trap that "newer" and "more expensive" is better.  However, if one actually sits down and tests various lenses against each other, one will find that the best 1950s rangefinder lenses are still competitive today on film or 24mp sensors with any non-ASPH lens.  Lens coatings probably have been more the key to improved performance than rearranging pieces of glass. 

Anyway, part of the fun of photography is playing around with different lenses.  I do not often understand the "purity" preference at all -- but I can see why some people would feel that way.  

Edited November 9, 2020 by Dave Steele

[ktmrider2]

DDD is David Douglas Duncan.  He was the only Marine photographer aboard the USS Missouri during the Japanese surrender ceremony at the end of WW2.  He became a LIFE photographer following WW2 and his photos of the Marines in Korea and during the Chosin campaign are legendary.  He later spent years becoming friends with and documenting Picasso.  He passed away a couple years ago and his entire photography collection has been donated to the University of Texas in Austin.

I find the debate here on using this lens or that lens or which camera like debating Trump vs Biden, ie not very useful.  Studying the images and careers of famous photographers of the past would probably go much further in improving one's images then worrying about bokeh or if the latest version of the Summicron flares or has a few lines per mm more resolution then the equivalent Zeiss or the second version of the Summicron etc.  

This opinion will probably not be too popular on an equipment forum but that is what we did in photojournalism back in college, not debating if Leica was better then Nikon or if Canon was the way to go.  And I have a couple friends who shoot for NATIONAL GEO and their house is filled with books on photography and I do not mean which camera system to use.

Edited November 9, 2020 by ktmrider2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BrianS]

David Douglas Duncan and Horace Bristol received a tour of the Nikon Factory, and did quite a bit of testing of lenses. It has been written that DDD preferred the Nikkor 5cm F1.5 over the F1.4 replacement, and that probably explains why Nikon changed the optics of the Nikkor 5cm F1.4 early in production.

The Nikkor 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4 were used extensively in David Douglas Duncan's book, "This is War". The photographs of the Korean War played a roll in the 1952 election, where "Ike" Eisenhower promised to bring the war to an end. The photograph of "Ike Fenton" is hailed as one of the best portraits of all time, was taken with a Nikkor on a Leica.

I also found a 1st Edition ""This is War" to go with the lenses.

 

The first outing with my Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 was the Marine Museum, featuring the work of David Douglas Duncan.

Pictures with my lens of the images taken with DDD's 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!