Small differences between M lenses pale in M vs S comparisons

[setuporg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been late in the game to the M APO 50, and it stood out dramatically.  You need to shoot wide open.  Same with the Noctilux.

This forum has an infinite series of comparisons between various M lenses.  E.g. now folks clamor for a 1.2 Noctilux, going back in time from 0.95 to 1.0 to 1.2.

However, when I got the S system with all of its 10 lenses, I saw that each and every single one of them is a Noctilux or APO.  They all achieve am amazing subject separation with a variety of apertures, due to the MF look.  Of course the S sensors help.

Thus, all the nitpicking and handwringing, trying to choose between two lenses, become infinitely less important than choosing between an M or S.  Even the SL with its outstanding Summicrons falls closer to the M.

The problem with the S is its weight and size.  That of course shifts arguments of some M lenses as being heavy, like the 28mm Lux, into a laughable territory from the point of view of the S.  Even the SL zooms become normal compared to the S primes, with the same 82mm filter thread.

I guess my point is, it is much more interesting to compare M to S than trying to discern tiny differences between the M lenses.  And if you want to see a dramatic spectre of the possibilities, it's much more fun to get an S and/or X1D system and lenses (e.g. the XCD 80/1.9) than say five different 50mm M lenses.

Edited January 9, 2021 by setuporg

[frame-it]

so you're talking about comparing 2 different systems not 2 lenses on the same system..the sensor should be a constant in order to compare 2 variables right? if not, then how is it a proper comparison?

[lct]

Tiny differences for some people, huge ones for others. SL lenses and bodies are too bulky for my taste so comparing them to M gear is of no interest for me anyway. Different systems, different beasts. YMMV. 

[Ecar]

29 minutes ago, lct said:

Tiny differences for some people, huge ones for others. SL lenses and bodies are too bulky for my taste so comparing them to M gear is of no interest for me anyway. Different systems, different beasts. YMMV. 

+1

[setuporg]

3 hours ago, frame-it said:

so you're talking about comparing 2 different systems not 2 lenses on the same system..the sensor should be a constant in order to compare 2 variables right? if not, then how is it a proper comparison?

Sure it's different systems but if you just look at the final image you understand the difference.  After all is said and done, the S look is more obvious than barely discernible differences between a variety of M 50mm lenses.

[Guest]

Are there S lenses dating from the 1950's?

Vast differences between the various m mount lenses through its history but the S is simply a modern camera with modern lenses.

 

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, setuporg said:

I've been late in the game to the M APO 50, and it stood out dramatically.  You need to shoot wide open.  Same with the Noctilux.

This forum has an infinite series of comparisons between various M lenses.  E.g. now folks clamor for a 1.2 Noctilux, going back in time from 0.95 to 1.0 to 1.2.

However, when I got the S system with all of its 10 lenses, I saw that each and every single one of them is a Noctilux or APO.  They all achieve am amazing subject separation with a variety of apertures, due to the MF look.  Of course the S sensors help.

Thus, all the nitpicking and handwringing, trying to choose between two lenses, become infinitely less important than choosing between an M or S.  Even the SL with its outstanding Summicrons falls closer to the M.

The problem with the S is its weight and size.  That of course shifts arguments of some M lenses as being heavy, like the 28mm Lux, into a laughable territory from the point of view of the S.  Even the SL zooms become normal compared to the S primes, with the same 82mm filter thread.

I guess my point is, it is much more interesting to compare M to S than trying to discern tiny differences between the M lenses.  And if you want to see a dramatic spectre of the possibilities, it's much more fun to get an S and/or X1D system and lenses (e.g. the XCD 80/1.9) than say five different 50mm M lenses.

None of this is why, as a collector and user, I own a very large number of Leicas and Leitz lense, mainly vintage ones This type of sporting excellence comparison (X is better than Y etc) should be reserved for the Olympics or for bar rooms, when they are open again. I admit that I have not the remotest interest in S cameras and lenses and that I am less in interested in M lenses than I am in LTM ones. When I want image separation, I can get it with most of the lenses I already have, but that is not what I mainly look for in photographs. If you want to see excellent image separation try using a 19th brass Petzval on a large format camera. I have got excellent image separation using lenses made in the 1860s, but, again, that was not why I bought that lens. 

I can see, though, that you get great fun out of all of this nitpicking comparison thing and all I can say is the best of luck to you. I get the same type of fun out of collecting, but I think I would give it up if I ever found myself doing micro-analysis of the differences between various Leica/Leitz lenses.

William

[lct]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

Sure it's different systems but if you just look at the final image you understand the difference.  After all is said and done, the S look is more obvious than barely discernible differences between a variety of M 50mm lenses.

I did not realize you were comparing M to S lenses sorry. The latter are medium format lenses as you know. Would be like comparing the Planar 80 of a Rolleiflex to the Planar 50 of a Sony. In final images, differences would come less from lenses per se than from different formats, focal lengths and DoF IMHO.

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, setuporg said:

I've been late in the game to the M APO 50, and it stood out dramatically.  You need to shoot wide open.  Same with the Noctilux.

This forum has an infinite series of comparisons between various M lenses.  E.g. now folks clamor for a 1.2 Noctilux, going back in time from 0.95 to 1.0 to 1.2.

However, when I got the S system with all of its 10 lenses, I saw that each and every single one of them is a Noctilux or APO.  They all achieve am amazing subject separation with a variety of apertures, due to the MF look.  Of course the S sensors help.

Thus, all the nitpicking and handwringing, trying to choose between two lenses, become infinitely less important than choosing between an M or S.  Even the SL with its outstanding Summicrons falls closer to the M.

The problem with the S is its weight and size.  That of course shifts arguments of some M lenses as being heavy, like the 28mm Lux, into a laughable territory from the point of view of the S.  Even the SL zooms become normal compared to the S primes, with the same 82mm filter thread.

I guess my point is, it is much more interesting to compare M to S than trying to discern tiny differences between the M lenses.  And if you want to see a dramatic spectre of the possibilities, it's much more fun to get an S and/or X1D system and lenses (e.g. the XCD 80/1.9) than say five different 50mm M lenses.

Careful, if you follow this logic you will wind up shooting 8x10 like me...if you are going to be carrying everything anyway, etc etc.

People debate the M lens qualities because they are ever more important the smaller the format you use. With the smaller sensors, the lenses have to be better and better to maximize the performance, and the variations between lenses are more significant. It is hard to compare across formats because it is not a fair fight in either direction...if you want to use a super telephoto or macro with a lot of depth of field, something like APS-C or micro four thirds will be much easier to do that with than 4x5. When it comes to subject isolation, 8x10 can give you a look that is nearly impossible to achieve with other formats, because a 250mm lens is considered a wide angle. There is a reason that they call medium format "medium". Though it relates to older film formats, with all else being equal, it gives you the best balance of DOF. The wide angles gives lots of DOF, the normals give either very shallow DOF or lots of it, depending on aperture, and the longer lenses all have very shallow DOF. 35mm is the most versatile, but medium format has remained very popular with artists and professionals because it has a very good balance of image quality to handling. Not as cumbersome or difficult as large format, but higher quality and superior aesthetics than 35mm for many types of work. The M was and remains popular because its compact size and fast lenses meant that it could stand in for medium format in situations where the larger system was undesirable (such as journalism, travel and personal work). Comparing it to the S system is certainly possible, but it is somewhat strange, as they both have their best characteristics in different areas.

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, setuporg said:

...................

The problem with the S is its weight and size. 

...............................................

Er....and cost?

Edited January 9, 2021 by LocalHero1953

[Aryel]

3 hours ago, setuporg said:

Sure it's different systems but if you just look at the final image you understand the difference.  After all is said and done, the S look is more obvious than barely discernible differences between a variety of M 50mm lenses.

I think if you take some time to read some of the threads and look through samples taken with different lenses of the same focal lens, you will understand why comparing M lenses is meaningful and helpful. They all have their own rendering. I'd be lost without all these threads helping me out select what to try out and seeing others people work is very inspiring. Some people like the asph, some others prefer older designs. This is one of the joy of shooting M cameras.

 

[Jeff S]

There’s already scrutiny between S lenses of similar FL, like the S100 vs S120.  Can you imagine if there were 5-10 more S lenses in that that same range to debate?  The M system has a long history, evolving from film to digital, designer to designer, etc, all while maintaining backward compatibility.  Let’s see if the S system even lasts, or evolves to mirrorless (or something else), and then see how forum discussions change. Different beasts, different use cases, and different buying considerations. And that’s before getting into changing viewing practices, screen vs print, print size, etc that lead one to debate about end results.
 

As Stuart suggests, report back after you’ve moved up to large format.

Jeff

[otto.f]

9 hours ago, setuporg said:

I guess my point is, it is much more interesting to compare M to S than trying to discern tiny differences between the M lenses

Yes, but the idea is that portability and volume are important for a streetcamera, which the M is in origin. It is not so hard to make good lenses for large formats. And perhaps the idea of the M being a street camera has been bleached in the Karbe era where overproportional M lenses are being produced. But this was not where the M was about.  If I’d have to go with a Noctilux 75 in street I would rather prefer an S with a fat chance that some of its lenses will produce a nicer bokeh, just because of the format. 

[giannis]

11 hours ago, setuporg said:

I've been late in the game to the M APO 50, and it stood out dramatically.  You need to shoot wide open.  Same with the Noctilux.

This forum has an infinite series of comparisons between various M lenses.  E.g. now folks clamor for a 1.2 Noctilux, going back in time from 0.95 to 1.0 to 1.2.

However, when I got the S system with all of its 10 lenses, I saw that each and every single one of them is a Noctilux or APO.  They all achieve am amazing subject separation with a variety of apertures, due to the MF look.  Of course the S sensors help.

Thus, all the nitpicking and handwringing, trying to choose between two lenses, become infinitely less important than choosing between an M or S.  Even the SL with its outstanding Summicrons falls closer to the M.

The problem with the S is its weight and size.  That of course shifts arguments of some M lenses as being heavy, like the 28mm Lux, into a laughable territory from the point of view of the S.  Even the SL zooms become normal compared to the S primes, with the same 82mm filter thread.

I guess my point is, it is much more interesting to compare M to S than trying to discern tiny differences between the M lenses.  And if you want to see a dramatic spectre of the possibilities, it's much more fun to get an S and/or X1D system and lenses (e.g. the XCD 80/1.9) than say five different 50mm M lenses.

I know what you're describing and it's a much more pronounced in film, since there the jump from 35mm to even 6x6 is almost 4x the area.

I stopped chasing resolution in 35mm a long time ago. It's always funny seeing people obsess over which lens is a tiny bit sharper than the rest for an extra $1,000, while I can get a 80mm f/2.8 bronica lens for $100 that will comfortably outresolve it (along with the other benefits of medium format). At this point, for film at least, chasing diminishing returns in resolution while spending thousands doesn't make sense. In most cases you can buy a full medium format camera+lens for less than the difference in price between a "very good" and "excellent" lens in 135 format.

Attaching a heavily resized pic relevant to the point.

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!

[Pyrogallol]

Yes, at least I am not going to the extreme of asking which Noctilux is the sharpest. I don’t think any of my lenses were made in this century.

My best picture in the past year was taken with a homemade 5x4 camera with a 1950’s 135mm Xenar 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!

[astrostl]

There can be large differences across

14 hours ago, setuporg said:

I guess my point is, it is much more interesting to compare M to S than trying to discern tiny differences between the M lenses.

There are very demonstrated and material differences between "the M lenses" (presuming you mean Leica-branded ones).

[cboy]

2c...The design constraints are different between systems. M lenses are optimised to within the constrains of a rangefinder system; that is to have the highest optical quality to be used for a rangefinder. So it needs to have the smallest form factor so that it can operate within the system, which is the limiting factor optically. S & SL lenses have none of the size constraints that a M lens does, which makes them orders of magnitude higher than M.

Below is link between M & SL, sorry if it had been elsewhere posted before. But it just highlights the difference form factor plays and even more so for S lenses which are even orders of magnitude more than either the two due to sensor format.

If the op is trying to show how S lenses are better than M or SL lenses thats because they have been designed to be lol.

Edited January 10, 2021 by cboy

[Ko.Fe.]

S, R whatever. To me Leica is with M.

[setuporg]

Thanks for all the comments.  The point was me struggling with the question "if you keep only one system, what should it be."  I find that it's impossible to achieve the look of S with anything that M has.  And getting a variety of M lenses will not achieve the diversity that a single S lens adds.  Of all the replies @giannis got it exactly right.  The reality of travel is that M works much better.  But if the goal is not collecting but realizing all kinds of looks, getting an MF lens surely beats a new M lens in terms of difference/cost ratio.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pedaes]

6 minutes ago, setuporg said:

Of all the replies @giannis got it exactly right.

Does he get a S system as a prize?

Look at the images that make top favourites here - it is all about light and atmosphere.