Are all modern lenses so perfect, and thus similar in scene rendering, that camera systems are best picked according to body ease of use?

[Tom1234]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Comparing the best newest aspherical and spherical lenses from Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Sony, and other makers…  do these lenses all give a different aesthetic "Look" or do they create similar pictures that are about the same?  Have we reached the point of diminishing returns in lens differences?  

Now be honest!  Have all the best lenses become about the same, such that they have lost their ability to cause us to select one maker over another?  Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?

Sure physical build quality matters too but even this is now similar enough to make it loose its place as a single reason to select any makers lenses, has it not?  Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?

As all makers lenses approach "perfection" they by definition are all becoming very similar lenses.  It can NOT BE TRUE that these lenses give different aesthetics, "looks", however you want to say it, if they are all are approaching technical perfection.  As the MTF curves are all mostly high above 50% and "flat" across the lens from center to outer, and "next to each other for "tangental and sagittal lines" then these lenses must by definition create very very very similar looking images.  Some single examples can probably be given to dispute with me but overall isn't this true?

Given the computer design of lenses and the CNC (computer numerically controlled) lens production, all lenses MUST be nearing the point of diminishing returns as pertains to improvements in image quality.  

As all companies have essentially the same design software, materials, and production equipment available to them, the images made by all lenses are very good and very similar to other makers lenses. 

As I switch to a mirrorless system, the body matters the most, that is how easy it is to use.  The similarity of lenses puts me in the strange position of possibly SELLING my Leica-M ASPH manual focus lenses, all the best ones, and possibly buying Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Leica's new mirrorless lenses to match the body I like best.  It doesn't matter who makes the lenses since they are all so good that the few differences in them just do not matter, if I'm honest about it… Of course, yes, this apparent truth makes me want to vomit. 

So with modern nearly perfect lenses differences so small that I find it stupid to discuss them… the only differentiating features of  modern cameras are the color science and camera body handling features (ergonomics).  People who "fix it in post" will even forget the color science and go for the most noiseless sensor implementation giving the highest ISO. 

So please comment… and extend some kindness… this is not my fault… we are all dealing with it… my love for Leica is not waning… instead I am heart broken to think another could satisfy me as well a the red dot.  

With all makers new lenses reaching near perfection can I, should I, just buy the easiest to use body and forget lenses as part of the selection process since the best ones are all about the same anyway?  Probably this is what I will be doing unless talked out of it and I am thinking that others will do the same without thinking about it so much.  

Really the only lenses I am likely to keep are old lenses from the 1930-1980's that have unique image quality aesthetics that can not be called perfection yet do look beautiful.  But the more perfect M ASPH's I should sell to buy the equivalent "perfect lens" from the maker of my new mirrorless autofocus body.    

If the M ASPH lenses could be used when focused at infinity, on a body that could then auto-focus them, (a 3rd party adapter of uncertain dependability is already available to do this), only then would they have present value forcing me to keep them and buy more.  

Comments?  

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

Of course, yes, this apparent truth makes me want to vomit. 

 

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

I am heart broken to think another could satisfy me as well a the red dot.  

 

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

Comments?

Serious comment: if brand loyalty is getting to you that intensely, then you need to get out and take photos with whatever camera works for you - and keep doing so until you are more interested in your photos than your kit. 

[evikne]

The more perfect lenses become, regardless of brand, the more they will approach the same (boring?) look. I wish Leica dared to take a break from this rat race and make smaller, lighter, less perfect (but still good) lenses, with character, like they did before. 

[pedaes]

12 minutes ago, evikne said:

with character, like they did before

I think they have always strived to make the best technically possible , and what we now refer to as 'character' is a bi-product of available glass types, coatings, mechanical precision and optical design, plus maybe a bit of age related degeneration. 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, Tom1234 said:

It can NOT BE TRUE that these lenses give different aesthetics, "looks", however you want to say it, if they are all are approaching technical perfection.

Comments?  

Well, it CAN. Optical designs vary. Zeiss have published a paper which shows how design choices can affect the transition from point of focus to out of focus, and how bokeh can be adjusted. There is a lot more to lens design that simply making lenses 'sharp' and minimising aberrations. Cjhoices include not using aspherical elements (sperical only), the use of aspherical elements, the number of aspherical elements and where they are placed, etc., etc.. Add into this the use of optical design to minimise some aberrations and then software correction to adjust for oher aberrations which can be dealt with viable in this way and it is obvious that there are a lot of possibilities for variation in the final image.

Since you are posting in the M lens section I would add in that lenses designed for M cameras need to have a high degree of optical precision and minimal software correction because they have to be compatible and work excellently with film and a variety of digital M cameras. I have similarly specified lenses designed for M cameras and for EVF cameras and they do produced different images. Whether this is of relevance to you or your photography only you can determine.

[evikne]

1 hour ago, pedaes said:

I think they have always strived to make the best technically possible , and what we now refer to as 'character' is a bi-product of available glass types, coatings, mechanical precision and optical design, plus maybe a bit of age related degeneration. 

Yes, I doubt Leica has ever made "character" lenses on purpose. But if the lenses should continue to get better and better, they will inevitably get bigger and heavier. Instead I think they should utilize the newest technology and knowledge to make better lenses within the limits of the M-system's basic idea. Voigtländer has managed to make a 35/1.4 at the same size as Leica's classic 35 mm Summilux pre-ASPH, but much sharper wide open, and with 0.7 m focus limit. I am sure Leica could have done the same if they would. But I think they may be afraid to make lenses that don't live up to today's high standards.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keep them small and they won't be boring thanks to smart imperfections.

[jdlaing]

23 minutes ago, evikne said:

Yes, I doubt Leica has ever made "character" lenses on purpose. 

Thambar.

Twice. 😃

[evikne]

2 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

Thambar.

Twice. 😃

I had that lens in mind and considered mentioning it as an exception. 😉

[Kwesi]

3 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

Comparing the best newest aspherical and spherical lenses from Leica, Nikon, Cannon, Sony, and other makers…  do these lenses all give a different aesthetic "Look" or do they create similar pictures that are about the same?  Have we reached the point of diminishing returns in lens differences?

 

3 hours ago, Tom1234 said:

As I switch to a mirrorless system, the body matters the most, that is how easy it is to use.  The similarity of lenses puts me in the strange position of possibly SELLING my Leica-M ASPH manual focus lenses, all the best ones, and possibly buying Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Leica's new mirrorless lenses to match the body I like best.  It doesn't matter who makes the lenses since they are all so good that the few differences in them just do not matter, if I'm honest about it… Of course, yes, this apparent truth makes me want to vomit.

I honestly can't answer your question for you because I only use Leica lenses on my M.

You can do so easily for yourself though by renting different systems and evaluating them. In some ways you are lucky to not feel predisposed to a particular mirrorless brand.

[matthewm2]

6 hours ago, pgk said:

Well, it CAN. Optical designs vary. Zeiss have published a paper which shows how design choices can affect the transition from point of focus to out of focus, and how bokeh can be adjusted. There is a lot more to lens design that simply making lenses 'sharp' and minimising aberrations. Cjhoices include not using aspherical elements (sperical only), the use of aspherical elements, the number of aspherical elements and where they are placed, etc., etc.. Add into this the use of optical design to minimise some aberrations and then software correction to adjust for oher aberrations which can be dealt with viable in this way and it is obvious that there are a lot of possibilities for variation in the final image.

Since you are posting in the M lens section I would add in that lenses designed for M cameras need to have a high degree of optical precision and minimal software correction because they have to be compatible and work excellently with film and a variety of digital M cameras. I have similarly specified lenses designed for M cameras and for EVF cameras and they do produced different images. Whether this is of relevance to you or your photography only you can determine.

I would read that paper from Zeiss, do you have a link?

 

[pgk]

Try: https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2018/04/Article-Bokeh-2010-EN.pdf

[matthewm2]

In reality, yes.. as lenses strive for "perfection" they lose character. How we, I always thought of the Lecia system as more than the sum of it's parts. 

I have an M10, but I shoot on a Sony A7R4 a lot as well. And I choose to use my modern leica lenses with it because I enjoy the experience of using a leica lens. I like the way it feels and the way it looks as much as I like the images it produces. 

This is off topic, but I will say the images from the M10 are always better than the ones from the Sony... Same lens. Same subject, the Leica wins every time. 

[docmarten]

28 Summaron...? I do not know it but it seems to have its own "look". Wattsy, I hope you don' t mind if I cite your photo (I love it):

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 February 6, 2021 by docmarten

[Tom1234]

12 hours ago, evikne said:

The more perfect lenses become, regardless of brand, the more they will approach the same (boring?) look. I wish Leica dared to take a break from this rat race and make smaller, lighter, less perfect (but still good) lenses, with character, like they did before. 

I second that motion on the floor… 

[Tom1234]

10 hours ago, evikne said:

Yes, I doubt Leica has ever made "character" lenses on purpose. But if the lenses should continue to get better and better, they will inevitably get bigger and heavier. Instead I think they should utilize the newest technology and knowledge to make better lenses within the limits of the M-system's basic idea. Voigtländer has managed to make a 35/1.4 at the same size as Leica's classic 35 mm Summilux pre-ASPH, but much sharper wide open, and with 0.7 m focus limit. I am sure Leica could have done the same if they would. But I think they may be afraid to make lenses that don't live up to today's high standards.

Great points. 

[Tom1234]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 

 

Serious comment: if brand loyalty is getting to you that intensely, then you need to get out and take photos with whatever camera works for you - and keep doing so until you are more interested in your photos than your kit. 

Brand loyalty yes, but also system dollars invested and thus the needs for that system to produce all of the many photographic possibilities.  Especially after investing so many $ dollars in Leica, a sudden switch  to other brands is not going to happen.  

But right now 2020-202,1 with the mirrorless thing happening, plus video hopping into our cameras, we have a turning point in history.  Now is my time to stick with Leica or move on.  I have many old Nikon F-lenses calling me but Nikon has lost their opportunity by not making their F-Lenses work on the Z-Mirrorless body since the F-Stop aperture is not automatically shut down before taking the picture, this mistake is a "trip and fall" for Nikon.

If Leica will get innovative and put auto-focus for "manual focus lenses set at infinity focus" into a body or into an adapter that really works, then I will stay.  If they make the features easier to use than other makers I will stay.  If they get the color science right I will stay.  Mostly Leica is doing these things. Thank you Leica. 

Leica must patronize their history of manual focus lenses in their modern cameras or they will essentially be undermining themselves and unnecessarily so since manual focus is still valid as a creative selection as are F-Stop selection and Shutter speed.  

Easy to use manual controls are essential to a creative photographer with automation as a useful to extended the camera into more varied shooting environments such as moving subject matter and for video that follows a subject thus requiring constant focus adjustment. 

I have not used their new L lenses but read that they do not have a F-Stop ring since that is done internally by the body… so are you then stuck with only that body and can not adapt the lens to another mirrorless body?  Before I pay $5,000 for a lens it will have to have some chance at a useful life beyond the original purchase and it may have to have that F-Stop collar on it.  

The L mount is what makes the lens "have legs" so to speak, without that the lens would be ultra limited device not worth investing in.  The L mount concept, that I hope any company can build for, is not just a good idea it is economically necessary. 

[Tom1234]

5 hours ago, docmarten said:

28 Summaron...? I do not know it but it seems to have its own "look". Wattsy, I hope you don' t mind if I cite your photo (I love it):

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!

Love this picture… it really produces a mood well.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[colonel]

Lenses draw very differently, and combined with the sensor, colour science and many other things in the software, can produce different worlds. Of course the cpu behind the eyepiece is the most important

I have shot with Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, Leica and Canon FF mirrorless and they are all different. My preference for raw is Sony because it has devastatingly neutral colours, which can be spun up to anything you want, and it’s face and eye detect is telepathic. 

Leica M and M lenses are kind of the opposite, the ethereal wrong M9 and M8 Kodachrome colours let you escape into a dream world, combined with the cold blue precision of the 50mm summilux. Sharp wide open is mesmerising. I always preferred the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 mark ii for its dreamy colours and unbeatable people rendering from Alice in wonderland,  M lenses allow the mixture of precision and dream, and that’s why I love them. Today my favourite for 50mm is the TTartisan 50mm f0.95, a very sharp lens (except at the extreme corners) and optimised for close up wide open shooting. Life is not worth compromises for a hobby which releases the mind. For 35mm I flit between precision and colours. Other FLs are less used by me and I have tried most.

However, with my FF mirrorless I demand absolute precision. Something more boring but better suited to consistency.

I guess the point is, if you are going for the gizmos get the best.

As an amateur who likes the end results together with the process, more then the spec sheets, latterly I find myself drawn back to Leica M. It’s the most fun, so many lenses, not enough time, and that’s the point  ...

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by colonel

[Tom1234]

8 minutes ago, colonel said:

Lenses draw very differently, and combined with the sensor, colour science and many other things in the software, can produce different worlds. Of course the cpu behind the eyepiece is the most important

I have shot with Sony, Nikon and Canon FF mirrorless and they are all different. My preference for raw is Sony because it has devastatingly neutral colours, which can be spun up to anything you want. Amateurs naturally mistake the over saturated Nikon and Canon colours for something better. 

Leica M and M lenses are kind of the opposite, the ethereal wrong M9 and M8 Kodachrome colours let you escape into a dream world, combined with the cold blue precision of the 50mm summilux. Sharp wide open is mesmerising. I always preferred the Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 mark ii for its dreamy colours and unbeatable people rendering from Alice in wonderland,  M lenses allow the mixture of precision and dream, and that’s why I love them. Today my favourite for 50mm is the TTartisan 50mm f0.95, a very sharp lens (except at the extreme corners) and optimised for close up wide open shooting. Life is not worth compromises for a hobby which releases the mind. For 35mm I flit between precision and colours. Other FLs are less used by me and I have tried most.

However, with my FF mirrorless I demand absolute precision. Something more boring but better suited to consistency. As an amateur who likes the end results together with the process, more then the spec sheets, latterly I find myself drawn back to Leica M. It’s the most fun, so many lenses, not enough time, and that’s the point  ...

 

Many thanks for you specific lens experiences.

For me the beauty of Leica's colors is much loved, in-spite of its "wrongness" that may exist in some of the saturation.  This has always been a problem in photography even with film starting with selection of film for outdoor-sun or indoor-tungsten lighting.  

A cinematographer friend of mine in Los Angles says the same as you… Sony's colors can be taken anywhere you want to so he chooses that system and gets great auto-focus with it. The color systems have not been worked out for me until you get to select your "tilt" of the colors to different named aesthetics including a neutral designed like Sony's that you can take wherever you want it.  

I realize that most of this is already available but greatly dislike using software like Photoshop to produce it, I prefer the camera get me as close to the end result I want as possible.