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

[astrostl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I didn't know such a simple question could unearth a seething furuncle of childishness and contempt in some quarters.

Again, your words betray your other words. In the original post you apparently anticipated that the subject (perhaps especially your approach to the subject) would be controversial to the extent that you saw fit to include a disclaimer: "...Before people start to get offended/defensive/outraged or commence to flinging poo..." It isn't an inherently controversial subject, though, and I think it can be easily approached without controversy: "What are your favorite non-Leica lenses and why?"

Quote

If Leica M glass is no better than TTArtisan and/or 7artisans Photoelectric, why do people pay $5895 USD for a Leica 35mm f/1.4 lens when they could buy a 7artisans Photoelectric 35mm f/1.4 lens that is supposedly "just as good" for $429 USD?

There is something other than image quality at work that is causing the malice we are seeing from some people responding to this thread.

I think it worth observing that the vast majority of the thread has been discussed in theoreticals rather than comparative reviews of photos and characteristics. DigLloyd and BastianK at PhillipReeve have both performed multi-way 35mm M shootouts which concluded that the (larger, heavier, and cheaper) ZEISS 35/1.4 is a superior optical instrument to the Leica 35/1.4. This is just one example, but a very specific one with citations. And just about image quality.

Edited November 11, 2020 by astrostl

[Advertisement]

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

[astrostl]

7 minutes ago, JoeLeica said:

Leica is no ‘holy grail’. Maybe the Summicron lens that Jesus owned at one time but there’s no such thing today. They are nothing but tools.

To be fair, my Leica M10 and Leica 21/3.4 Super-Elmar-M were both laid on the Stone of Anointing at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre 🙏 But so was my iPhone 11 Pro 🤔 Perhaps it's time to create a, "what's the point of using an Android phone?" thread? 😂

Edited November 11, 2020 by astrostl

[pop]

Am 8.11.2020 um 00:19 schrieb Herr Barnack:

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

Upon further reflection, my answer to this has to be: the point is to take a picture.

[jaapv]

May I remind posters that we are discussing lenses, not the Fate of the World, and that there is nothing to justify acerbic attacks on the opinions of other members?

[Raymondl]

4 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I don't.  It was just a question.

I didn't know such a simple question could unearth a seething furuncle of childishness and contempt in some quarters.

If Leica M glass is no better than TTArtisan and/or 7artisans Photoelectric, why do people pay $5895 USD for a Leica 35mm f/1.4 lens when they could buy a 7artisans Photoelectric 35mm f/1.4 lens that is supposedly "just as good" for $429 USD?

There is something other than image quality at work that is causing the malice we are seeing from some people responding to this thread.

The Leica brand for me plays a massive role in the psychology effect of feeling that i am using a superior camera/lens.. and I am ready to rock and roll. I am also more forgiving if my expectations are not met, as I would typically “blame myself”... 

On the other hand if I was using another brand like 7artisans/TTartisans and my expectations were not met (e.g. corners weren’t sharp as I had shot wide open) I would be less forgiving... “poor QA.. corners are unusable”. 
 

example :

- If I read this thread and substitute Leica with TTartisans / 7artisans = it’s the lenses fault 

-if I read this thread “as-is” = it’s the photographers fault, as he doesn’t know how to use an amazing Leica 35 fle lens

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Raymondl

[Herr Barnack]

3 hours ago, pop said:

Upon further reflection, my answer to this has to be: the point is to take a picture.

Which I would agree with. 

Different lenses render differently.  There's nothing morally or ethically wrong with choosing to use a $450 USD lens.  Or a $14,095 USD lens.  Or simply asking why you would use one vs. the other.

 

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

40 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Different lenses render differently...

Did it really take you this long to acknowledge this self-evident truth? 106 posts?

Shame.

Philip.

[pop]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Herr Barnack:

Or simply asking why you would use one vs. the other.

Yes, quite. But then, the question would relate to a particular image or occasion, and the answer might refer to influences on the resulting image, or to ergonomical aspects or, perhaps, to affordability and so on. Still nothing about mythical drinking vessels or following brands.

Speaking of morally or ethically wrong: I know of at least one forum member who claims to use an extra, cheap set when taking photographs of poor people, so as not to appear to be waving his expensive gear in front of the poor. There's one reason for not using the original Leica lenses.

[Aryel]

7 hours ago, pop said:

Upon further reflection, my answer to this has to be: the point is to take a picture.

I think this is 100% spot on. Different lenses render differently. In some areas, I am more comfortable with a cheaper lens (leica or other too). I can focus on making photos rather than worrying about losing a lens I cannot afford to replace. More importantly, some lenses from other makers render differently. It is all about choosing which lenses to use for which pictures...

So, as Pop said: "the point is to take a picture" 

[Raymondl]

12 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

@Raymondl The comments I referred to were comments about Leica M lenses in general as I recall.  I remember reading these reviews in passing a couple of years back, and the comments made stuck in my mind as being significant.  I did not save links to the commentaries, though. 

@Herr Barnack I started to search online for fairly heavy "Leica" specific articles / blogs / lens reviews.. I am just curious NOW.

I stumbled across this article - "Making cameras and lenses the LEICA way" -  http://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2020/08/making-cameras-and-lenses-leica-way.html by Heinz Richter (08/2020)

Obviously, if people are interested, please read through the article, but I'll highlight some of the fascinating points (that stood out for me) as a "layman".

• ..tolerances and a level of precision simply not available from other manufacturers. This takes place on two levels, the mechanical and optical precision. For reasons of greater accuracy, Leica does not utilize any assembly lines.  Instead, all production and assembly steps are done on individual workstations...
• If it were possible to make a perfect lens, one without any flaws, this article would be meaningless.  However, it is impossible to do so.  Each lens will display certain faults which are virtually impossible to overcome and, unfortunately, of these faults or aberrations there are many, all of which will cause the photographic image to deteriorate....  
• Leica used to make their optical glass in house, but that proved to be too expensive in recent years.  Instead Leica now purchases their glass from companies like Schott and Hoya.  This includes proprietary designs like the so-called Apo glass which was first developed by Leica for the 50mm f/1 Noctilux.
• Tolerances differ substantially already with the raw glass.  Leica applies a standard of ±0.0002% for the accuracy of the refractive index.  This compares to the international standard of ±0.001% as applied by other lens manufacturers. 
• Leica uses computer controlled automatic grinding and polishing of the glass elements which require the adherence to extremely tight tolerances.  Unfortunately such production methods can only be achieved at considerable expense...
• Leica tried to outsource the manufacture of some aspherical lens elements to other companies.  Unfortunately this proved to be a dead end. 

So that's my take away of points there, interesting the author of the post didn't mention anything about Leica lenses being the holy grail (fairy humble and matter of fact), however it did drive home the message that the cost of the lenses is due to the manufacturing process and fairly strict Leica standards.. I guess it's all in the price and it's what you pay for.

[Herr Barnack]

@Raymondl Thanks for sharing this information and the link to it.  The article showcases many of the reason that I and many others hold Leica lenses in high regard. 

My use of the term "holy grail" with regard to Leica M lenses was a figure of speech, not an edict.

I am still in a state of disbelief at the maliciousness which some forum members have resorted to over such an off the cuff observation.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[evikne]

I migrated to this forum because I felt I couldn't mention the word "Leica" in my domestic photo forum without being mocked.

I hope it doesn't go so far that I feel the same here. 🙄

[LeicaR10]

Evikne,  You will find nay sayers, trolls and fools most any place these days.  Just ignore them, most are simply jealous.  If you ever saw their "photographs" they would be lacking.  Your photographs have character and most important content with meaning and feeling.   As I have often written, it is the content of photograph that makes the viewer;  Stop, Look, Think and if possible Feel something about that moment in time, are the qualities that separate a mere photo to that being a superb photograph.  It is not the make, model nor brand of camera or lens that does this...it is the creative mind and mastering the tools at hand.  In your case, you create superb photographs...just keep creating with your most excellent visionary ability...superb photographs.   r/ Mark 

Edited November 12, 2020 by LeicaR10

[BrianS]

The cost of the Leica 75/1.25 is about the same as what I just paid to pave my driveway. I have a big driveway.

But- I'm tired of shoveling snow, and the $450 lens is pretty good.

For work: I've paid to have custom lenses made for my projects. The most expensive: The metal of the barrel was specially formulated for the lens to account for coefficient of expansion with temperature. One lens cost $40K to manufacture, almost 40 years ago. 

What I like about my M8, M9, and M Monochrom: they put a Scientific Grade CCD in a camera that you could hold, walk around with, and take pictures with it. And they cost half what the 1.6MPixel DSLR cost me in 1992.

Cost is relative. If anyone is shooting with a lens "just because" it cost a lot of money, then they do not appreciate the work that went into it. I've taken most of my Leica lenses (20) apart, do a CLA on them. That gives a level of appreciation for the work and precision that went into these lenses.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by BrianS

[Einst_Stein]

I had Zeiss ZM film system before Leica M digital. It's a natural step to get Leica M digital to use ZM lenses. 

The first Leica M lens I have is 135mm Elmar due to its low price. Then I read a lot good comment about various non-Leica M lenses. The price is attractive. That's a natural next step.

Then I got Summicron 50mm. That's when I realized the difference.  It's not just hardware, the firmware also plays an important role.  When it matters, the Leica supported lenses could perform much better than an optically "may-be-better" lens without Leica's best support. One example is the Leica MATE vs. all ZM lenses I have: There is significant Christmas light effect from ZM but none (or almost none since I haven't found it yet) from MATE.

Now with Leica M 240, I also use Leica R, Hasselblad V, and APO-Rodagon en larger lens with it. While they are not leica-perfect matched, they can make sense. 

Would I buy another non Leica M lens? maybe , if there is no Leica alternatives, such as 12mm,  or if I happen to have the money to throw away for the low price.  

[Guest]

Depressing thread full of snobbery and elitism.

[Raymondl]

1 hour ago, steve 1959 said:

Depressing thread full of snobbery and elitism.

I am just waiting for the next thread - "What's the point of shooting with a non-leica branded UV filter on your Leica lens ?"

Edited November 13, 2020 by Raymondl

[Pyrogallol]

Or what’s the point of only using one brand of cameras/lenses when there are so many different ones to play with.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

8 hours ago, Raymondl said:

I am just waiting for the next thread - "What's the point of shooting with a non-leica branded UV filter on your Leica lens ?"

Funny thought but, oddly enough, there might be a very good reason to use Leitz made filters for some lens/hood combinations.

I have a number of Leitz 39mm filters as well as a few others made by 3rd party companies. The Leica filters have a narrower rim diameter than the others. With Leica filters fitted to those lenses which take clip on hoods (such as the 12538, 12585, IWKOO and so on) the hoods fit on the front of the lens-rim 'properly' - which means the hood slips over the filter and clips on the band at the front of the lens. Most of the 3rd party filters I have share the same diameter as the front of the lenses and, as a result, the hoods cannot slip past the filter-rim and do not attach in the correct manner - one exception being the filters made by B+W.

For use with those lenses which take screw-on hoods (90mm Tele-Elmarit M for example) this makes no difference and so this is where they become useable.

Philip.

[Flavio Colker]

Leica lenses are too $$$ . Otoh i find it charming to mix and match, to experiment. You can do it w/ Leica. Why not? I use a 50mm most of the time if not all the time so trying all 50s and finding one that helps me create my style is part of the rangefinder experience.