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

[BrianS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leica lenses have always been formulated to provide a very high degree of optical corrections. That typically means more individual groups, high degree of flatness of field, low CA, low geometric distortion. This requires a lot of precision, and is expensive. The Chinese lenses include a user adjustable RF cam, which both reduces cost in manufacturing the lens and in testing the lens. I like this approach as it makes it easier to optimize the lens for a particular camera. I have two 7Artisans 50/1.1 lenses, one optimized for the M9 and the other for use on the M Monochrom with a deep yellow filter. I've had to shim lenses or build up the cam for other lenses.

I prefer the rendering of the classic Leica lenses over the new ones. That is not to state that the new ones are not great lenses- just I prefer the classic Leica rendering. The 1st type Rigid Summicron 50/2 and a very clean Summarit 50/1.5 are among my favorites. I also picked up a perfect-glass Summar 50/2. It is sharp- once you get flare under control and haze cleaned out.

The Pentax 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromatic, Minolta Chiyoko 3.5cm F3.5 (multi-coated in 1957), 1936 CZJ 5cm F1.5 fully-coated optics- I have some rare and expensive lenses. I would never claim any as a "Holy Grail". I just gave away a 1928 4cm F1.4 Biotar to the owner of Skyllaney. Sitting in a box for years, 50 like it. Made him very happy. World's first F1.4 lens- as far as I know. He converted it to M-Mount. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by BrianS

[jdlaing]

I believe a Nikkor S 5cm was the worlds first 1.4 lens.

[Herr Barnack]

2 hours ago, astrostl said:

Alias: "Herr Barnack"
Statement: "Leica M lenses are the holy grail - they are legendary in the world of photography. They are most likely without equal."
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?"
Followup: "Don't be silly - the $449 USD 7artisans Photoelectric 75mm f/1.25 lens is every bit the equal of the $14,095 USD Leica Noctilux-M 75mm f/1.25 ASPH. lens. [laughing image]"

Again, as from the beginning, I find that you are exhibiting the exact sentiments and behavior that you state you wish to to avoid. Maybe start by not doing that? 🤷‍♂️

Your opinion, to which you are entitled.  Not that it holds water.

Can we dispense with the petty squabbles yet?

[adan]

4 hours ago, jdlaing said:

I believe a Nikkor S 5cm was the worlds first 1.4 lens.

As BrianS notes in passing, the 40mm (4cm) Zeiss Jena Biotar f/1.4 dates to 1927-1930. Long before Nikon's efforts - however the Nikkor did cover the full 24x36 format.

The Biotar appears to have been a cinema lens (i.e. would cover 35mm half-frame), from the vignetting and immensely swirly bokeh (Noctilux f/1.0, eat your heart out ). Although available or convertable to Leica LTM mount.

http://deeplens.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-12.html

http://deeplens.blog.fc2.com/img/DSC01596.jpg/

Also available were sister cine lenses Biotar 2.5cm f/1.4 and 5cm f/1.4

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/carl-zeiss-biotar-5cm-f1-25mm-jena-1751574240

https://collectiblend.com/Lenses/Zeiss,-Carl-Jena/50mm-f1.4-Biotar-(front-dia.-41mm).html

[Raymondl]

9 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

Maybe Leica lenses aren't the holy grail to everyone - but over the years, I have read more than a few comments in Leica reviews along the lines of "There are Leica lenses - and then there's all the rest," "Leica lenses are second to none," "In terms of image quality, Leica lenses reign supreme," etc.

Hey @Herr Barnack do you have a link to those reviews ? Just want to know what lens the reviewer were referring to.  

cheers

[BrianS]

13 hours ago, jdlaing said:

I believe a Nikkor S 5cm was the worlds first 1.4 lens.

No- I have a 5005 series Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4, from the first batch of these lenses that were produced. The Serial Number places the order in May, 1950. Side-story: Dumb Luck at an Antique Store. Nikon M with 5cm F1.4 first series, $30. Not as good as the Leica IIIa with Summar and Leica III black with Elmar for $15 each.

The Carl Zeiss Jena 4cm F1.4 was produced more than 20 years before the Nikkor. There were a total of 300 of these made, all mounts. It is rare. Zeiss also produced a 5cm F1.4 Biotar in the early 1930s. The coverage of the 4cm F1.4 falls short of full-frame, but covers the M8. I received the Biotar as a gift for repairing some rare lenses. It was like wax paper when received, cleaned perfectly. I used it on mirrorless- quite good. I wanted to do something nice for Chris at Skyllaney. Thanks to them, I have a real company to refer people to for doing pre-war Sonnar conversions.

I will be getting a Skyllaney lens as a gift. I wanted to do something nice for them in return. The Biotar- the thought of Skyllaney having the first F1.4 lens in M-Mount appealed to me, thought it would be a nice lens to showcase their skills. I also sent a Wollensak 35/2 Raptar, originally  in Fastax mount. I have one that I converted to Contax mount.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CGzZbb7n2TM/

Edited November 11, 2020 by BrianS

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Raymondl said:

Hey @Herr Barnack do you have a link to those reviews ? Just want to know what lens the reviewer were referring to.  

cheers

@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. 

[rivi1969]

On 11/7/2020 at 5:19 PM, Herr Barnack said:

 Leica M lenses are the holy grail... They are most likely without equal... this question is not intended to bash lenses other than M lenses...

Well, if that's your opinion... why do you need other people thoughts in that matter?

Guess what, new technology allows other brands to create lenses pretty much equal in IQ to Leica's at a fraction of the cost, so unless you drink too much red kool-aid, why not. 

[jdlaing]

54 minutes ago, BrianS said:

No- I have a 5005 series Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4, from the first batch of these lenses that were produced. The Serial Number places the order in May, 1950. Side-story: Dumb Luck at an Antique Store. Nikon M with 5cm F1.4 first series, $30. Not as good as the Leica IIIa with Summar and Leica III black with Elmar for $15 each.

The Carl Zeiss Jena 4cm F1.4 was produced more than 20 years before the Nikkor. There were a total of 300 of these made, all mounts. It is rare. Zeiss also produced a 5cm F1.4 Biotar in the early 1930s. The coverage of the 4cm F1.4 falls short of full-frame, but covers the M8. I received the Biotar as a gift for repairing some rare lenses. It was like wax paper when received, cleaned perfectly. I used it on mirrorless- quite good. I wanted to do something nice for Chris at Skyllaney. Thanks to them, I have a real company to refer people to for doing pre-war Sonnar conversions.

I will be getting a Skyllaney lens as a gift. I wanted to do something nice for them in return. The Biotar- the thought of Skyllaney having the first F1.4 lens in M-Mount appealed to me, thought it would be a nice lens to showcase their skills. I also sent a Wollensak 35/2 Raptar, originally  in Fastax mount. I have one that I converted to Contax mount.

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/

Edited November 11, 2020 by jdlaing

[BrianS]

29 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-s-50mm-f1-4-ai

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/rangefinder/5cm-f14.htm

Stephen and Ken forgot about this lens:

The 5cm F1.4 Biotar in Kinamo mount was manufactured in 1928, First Batch serial numbers start at 871,871 through 871,874. This lens has an image circle big enough to cover a 35mm full-frame.

Fabrikationsbuch Photooptik, Carl Zeiss Jena by Hartmut Thiele, Oct 2002.

 

I found a PDF of an original sales brochure years ago that listed these "Objectives of Extreme Rapidity".

What I find interesting- the Sonnar at F1.5 is the super-speed lens that everyone thinks of from Zeiss. These Biotars have been all but forgotten. Until I owned one, had never heard of them. 

 

The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 was formulated in 1937. The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 was formulated in the late 1940s. Interesting- the Simlar 5cm F1.5, a double-Gauss, was also formulated in 1937. This lens was later sold on the Leotax. I have the 74th made.

Edited November 11, 2020 by BrianS

[rivi1969]

On 11/10/2020 at 8:31 AM, steve 1959 said:

I shoot with my left eye and always have so cannot change now.

I can keep both eyes open but cannot see a damn thing with my right eye.

 

 

Me too, I can only see with my left, so the "framing with the viewfinder with the right, while seen everything coming into frame with the left" do not apply lol.

[pgk]

14 hours ago, BrianS said:

Leica lenses have always been formulated to provide a very high degree of optical corrections. That typically means more individual groups, high degree of flatness of field, low CA, low geometric distortion. This requires a lot of precision, and is expensive. The Chinese lenses include a user adjustable RF cam, which both reduces cost in manufacturing the lens and in testing the lens. I like this approach as it makes it easier to optimize the lens for a particular camera.

To elaborate. Old Leica lenses were made to the highest standards of their day but obviously standards do and have changed. Older lenses often still remain good by today's standards but are certainly not as good as many modern designs, and this brings me to an often ignored point. Leica lenses were and are made to high mechanical tolerance and can often be adjusted and even old lenses can be serviced and adjusted to optimise them and bring them up to as high a spec. as possible. However, user adjustable cams are only a part of reducing costs. I've had a modern cheap lens looked at by a well known Leica repairer who was not impressed with its other adjustability. In essence he said that it was what it was and that little could be done to optimise it beyond its user adjustability. Mine, which I was not overly impressed by, could not be improved due to lack of adjustability. Basically it relied on precise tolerances during manufacture and these may or may not be as tight as required (in my case perhaps not). Testing during manufacture is also costly and can be reduced if the tolerances are deemed acceptable. So if a copy is good it is good, if not then its going to stay that way. I'm not decrying this, simply explaining that you get what you pay for. Mechanical precision, adjustability and testing are expensive. If you are happy to accept that a low cost carries risks associated with reducing cost then that's fine. Lastly, Leica lenses are often repairable for decades and parts can be found or even sometimes made - it can be economic. Cheaper lenses are less likely to have long term parts availability and inevitably are quickly uneconomic to repair. I don't really think that the place of manufacture has as massive impacts on the prices of M lenses as we anticipate, the way they are manufactured probably has a lot more.

[Herr Barnack]

39 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

Well, if that's your opinion... why do you need other people thoughts in that matter?

 

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.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[rivi1969]

25 minutes 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.

You started your post saying "Leica lenses are the holy grail, unmatched..." so, that's your opinion.

Some people might think there are other viable options which are "better", "as good", "almost as good", or "good enough" to consider, some die-hard fans will buy Leica just because of the brand, the legacy... the heritage.. the bragging rights being the output. That's it. ALL viable options.

[lct]

18 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

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?

Because it is not just as good? Just a guess . I have only one Chinese lens, a 7 art 35/2, very good lens indeed, but it is not just as good as a Summicron 35/2 asph or an Ultron 35/2 asph. It is not far from them though, which is quite an achievement at this price level. Give it less distortion, less proneness to flare and a regular focus cam, i would then rate it as just as good as the Ultron, which in turn is more compact. FWIW.

[Herr Barnack]

17 minutes ago, rivi1969 said:

You started your post saying "Leica lenses are the holy grail, unmatched..." so, that's your opinion.

Some people might think there are other viable options which are "better", "as good", "almost as good", or "good enough" to consider, some die-hard fans will buy Leica just because of the brand, the legacy... the heritage.. the bragging rights being the output. That's it. ALL viable options.

Yes, that is my opinion and it is based on my experience of comparing Fuji RVP chromes made with my Nikkor 50mm /1.4 vs. Fuji RVP chromes made with my Leica 50/1.4 Summilux pre-ASPH ("millennium" black paint version).  The difference in image quality is staggering.

"Almost as good" and "good enough" are another matter entirely.

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Herr Barnack

[jkcampbell2]

1 hour ago, rivi1969 said:

Well, if that's your opinion... why do you need other people thoughts in that matter?

Guess what, new technology allows other brands to create lenses pretty much equal in IQ to Leica's at a fraction of the cost, so unless you drink too much red kool-aid, why not. 

Maybe because this is a discussion group where you can learn from other peoples opinions? 

[BrianS]

https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/00607/00607.pdf

 

I found the Brochure for the Zeiss objectives, which include the F1.4 Biotars. Called "Objective of Extreme Rapidity for Cinematography".

Judging by the measured image circle of the 4cm F1.4, the 5cm F1.4 will cover full-frame 35mm. Finding one to convert- I've seen one. These are rare lenses, but are the first F1.4 lenses made.

The Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4 was recomputed in the early 1950s, the switch to the new formula occurred around SN 33xxxxx- about when Nikon changed their format from 34x24 (Nikon M, Nikon S) to 36x24 while the Nikon S2 was in development. I discovered this over 10 years ago when taking several apart. Shooting with the Nikkors: I prefer the rendering of the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5. The Bokeh is smoother than the F1.4. I could probably trade the Nikkor for an Aspheric Summilux Leica 50/1.4, both cost about the same. But I would never do that. I will call it "The Pearl of Great Value" in my collection of over seventy 50mm lenses in Leica mount..

Edited November 11, 2020 by BrianS

[BradS]

1 hour ago, Herr Barnack said:

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

 

It is not about the question. The contempt is directed at the loathsome snobbery expressed in the first three sentences of the OP. The sentiments expressed in those sentences are exactly why people hate Leica and Leica users...it's not about the camera its about the snobbery, explicitly expressed superiority and the all-to-often inane obsession with an absolute and meaningless 'best'.

Edited November 11, 2020 by BradS

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[JoeLeica]

I can afford any Leica lens I want, or need, but chose Zeiss ZM instead. I can’t stand the focus tab on Leica lenses and much prefer the knurled rings. I am a shooter, not a collector and my tools have to work for me or they get sold. The Zeiss lenses fit me well. The only Leica lens I have is the 50 Summilux ASPH and only because it has a knurled ring. I modified that lens and took off the tab so it feels like a Zeiss. 

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.