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

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 minutes ago, matthewm2 said:

I don't disagree with you. But that's not the discussion here. The fact of the matter is, if a company wants to sell more product, they need to have an upgrade cycle. The cycle with camera bodies is megapickles and the like... the cycle with lenses is, what is technically considered to be, optical perfection. 

So, sharpness is a bourgeois concept? Maybe, but it sells lenses.  

That's a reasonable argument for the market as a whole, and thus it's obviously one that the large manufacturers have to recognise, and do. No market is  uniform though. Leica has always only addressed a small section of it, which is driven by different demands - how else do you account for the continuing success of the M? Those demands certainly include pixels, but also usability, colour science and adherence to a certain retro character, which explains the attraction of the MD and the various lens reissues. Price is less of a driver than in the big market.

The point is, Leica is small and specialised enough that it can produce models that appeal just to its small segment of the market. The M10R is never going to become a market leader in the whole photography sector, so it doesn't try. 

[Casey Jefferson]

I shoot Leica system because I love how their lenses rendered, and since they worked best on the body they designed on.

It's the richness of the RAW files, especially the tonal separations, makes shooting Leica lenses and body appealing. They're far from technically perfect lenses, but it's the above mentioned point that makes Leica lenses unique, often renders life-like images. On top of it, many Leica lenses have special way to render the oof areas so that they're as rich as the focal plane, rather than desaturated and lower contrast backgrounds, which is subjective to individual but I sure love it! 🤪 

PS: I'm coming "down" from GFX50R pairing with GF lenses which is a beast combo in terms of sharpness and performances, to put things in context. 🧐

Edited February 8, 2021 by Casey Jefferson

[pgk]

2 hours ago, matthewm2 said:

... the cycle with lenses is, what is technically considered to be, optical perfection.

But optical perfection is, as I tried to explain, a variable. We have been into the law of diminishing returns for a decade already, the idea that we can relentlessly pursue MPixels and their corresponding requirements of resolution defies the laws of physics. So at some point we have to decide what it is that the differences we want are in terms of optics or we might as well all buy the cheapest glass which delivers the highest resolution. For the majority of camera owners this is most likely just an academic question, but for some of us its an interesting part of the evolution of photography which we are living through. Photographic lenses have had 180 years of evolution so far and I doubt that its over just yet.

[lct]

When some people say "perfection" they think "sharpness". Old confusion between photography and reprography.

[Keith (M)]

7 hours ago, Casey Jefferson said:

I shoot Leica system because I love how their lenses rendered, and since they worked best on the body they designed on.

It's the richness of the RAW files, especially the tonal separations, makes shooting Leica lenses and body appealing. They're far from technically perfect lenses, but it's the above mentioned point that makes Leica lenses unique, often renders life-like images. On top of it, many Leica lenses have special way to render the oof areas so that they're as rich as the focal plane, rather than desaturated and lower contrast backgrounds, which is subjective to individual but I sure love it! 

Those factors are what makes my current combination of M10M + 50mm Noctilux f1 v4 so addictive (to me, anyway!).  Something of a match made in photographic heaven.   

[Ko.Fe.]

To me cameras are still tools than "investment". I like Leica M and LTM for been something I get used to. Lenses? I'm not this picky. But I like Summarit-M 35 2.5. It is different build from Cosina CV, ZM. Can't comment on recent MiC. They are slightly big for M, IMO.

I also have Canon cameras and they are simple tools to get image guaranteed. Their L lenses are good in EF, but in RF mount some are grossly large and some are too overpriced.   

For sure where are some better lenses than others. But if exposure has real content, it doesn't matter how good lens it is.

 

[matthewm2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, pgk said:

But optical perfection is, as I tried to explain, a variable. We have been into the law of diminishing returns for a decade already, the idea that we can relentlessly pursue MPixels and their corresponding requirements of resolution defies the laws of physics. So at some point we have to decide what it is that the differences we want are in terms of optics or we might as well all buy the cheapest glass which delivers the highest resolution. For the majority of camera owners this is most likely just an academic question, but for some of us its an interesting part of the evolution of photography which we are living through. Photographic lenses have had 180 years of evolution so far and I doubt that its over just yet.

I see what you mean and I think we are saying the same thing.. you're saying optical perfection is subjective therefore impossible to achieve... I agree. I am saying the person trying to sell you a new and improved lens does not. 

15 hours ago, lct said:

When some people say "perfection" they think "sharpness". Old confusion between photography and reprography.

I agree, it's not the most important thing. Especially on digital when there is computer trickery going on in camera. In fact, I never said it was. I only said it sells lenses. 

[colonel]

This is what we mean, perfection vs draw. Its a real balance on every lens

This is the new Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 ii

What you can see is that it is super sharp wide open on the plane of focus, but is glowy wide open elsewhere.

I love this. in the old days, no glowy lens was sharp wide open.

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!

Link to full size:

Hadas, Study | Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 ii, Leica M-P 240 | harold.whatever | Flickr

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by colonel

[Casey Jefferson]

24 minutes ago, colonel said:

This is what we mean, perfection vs draw. Its a real balance on every lens

This is the new Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 ii

What you can see is that it is super sharp wide open on the plane of focus, but is glowy wide open elsewhere.

I love this. in the old days, no glowy lens was sharp wide open.

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!

Link to full size:

Hadas, Study | Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 ii, Leica M-P 240 | harold.whatever | Flickr

 

This lens caught my attention lately, it offer a somewhat "classic" rendering but the colors and richness just pop right off the screen. Gotta get one someday to shoot.

[Keith (M)]

35mm lens with character?  The VM Nokton f1.2 III has plenty!  Both images on M240, f1.2 & MFD of 0.5m via EVF.

 

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!

[Tom1234]

Beautiful pictures… thanks for share.

[Tom1234]

After doing a study of many 50mm lens renditions I may have to debunk my own Original Poster question summarized: "If all lenses are "perfect" then they are so similar that lenses can be disregarded in the buying decision then a person can select their camera brand according to the body features alone." 

I have found these four 50mm lenses to all have different renditions:  Leica's 50mm 1.4 Asph, 50mm 1.4 Lux, 50mm 2.0 Cron, and 50mm 2.0 ZM Zeiss.  Given that there are differences in presentation even among great lenses, a person has to let go of this parameter of lens presentation character, "look", i.e. the lenses unique drawing ability, in order to make it a body only decision.  I do not think I am ready to do that.  

But for a while it was a pleasant thought to simplify life and lower costs. 

[Harpomatic]

On 2/6/2021 at 1:09 PM, 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 think we already have a brand doing that: Voigtlander. They are catering for different customers: super fast lenses, small lenses with high optical quality, APO lenses now...they are rocking it and at really great prices. I really don’t they they leave is wanting at all. 

[Cobram]

Indeed nowadays Voigtlander is developing many interesting and, in Leica terms, cheap lenses. 

[giannis]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:42 PM, Tom1234 said:

 do these lenses all give a different aesthetic "Look" or do they create similar pictures that are about the same?

The litmus test is a blind test. 

 

On 2/6/2021 at 12:42 PM, Tom1234 said:

 Have we reached the point of diminishing returns in lens differences?

Yeah at some point in the 70's and definitely by 80's.

 

I wouldn't disparage ergonomics though, and mount. Size, weight, placement of controls, and of course the mount (which up until recently restricted the lens almost exclusively to specific camera bodies) play a role in how often you use a lens, what lenses you carry in your kit etc. . And some niche cases of course of very specific preferences. For instance I usually don't shoot wide open even for shallow DoF portraits , usually a couple stops stopped down between f/2.8 - f/4. So I like a lens with many aperture blades that gives nice circular bokehballs in those apertures, and to me that's more important than "great bokeh" wide open and then having to put up with pentagons and hexagons at the apertures I'm shooting 99% of time. 

However if you're expecting a revelation by shooting a different lens of the same focal length, same aperture, on the same format and sensor, you're in for some disappointment.

[adan]

15 minutes ago, giannis said:

Yeah at some point in the 70's and definitely by 80's.

...or even earlier.

Realistically, camera systems have always been the MAIN "unique selling proposition." Very, very few photographers ever switched systems because of lenses, because lens technology spread throughout the industry very rapidly, in just about every decade after WW2. Coincident with the arrival of computers to do the calculations that used to take months with adding machines or slide-rules or even pencil and paper.

The Battle-Royal between Nikon and Canon was all about camera capabilities. Nikon jumped way out in front with the modular, professional Nikon F in 1959, and it took Canon a decade to respond (1971) with the F-1. And Canon still never pulled ahead (despite, IMHO, some excellent FD lenses) until they beat Nikon to the punch with the whole new EOS AF system (1987). And both, of course, quickly left Leica in the dust.

Leica survived by having its own unique system (compact interchangeable-lens rangefinder) - which did allow for smaller and generally better wideangles (no mirror in the way). But sold mostly on the basis of camera size/weight/noise.

Now, that doesn't mean lenses are totally irrelevant. Nikon and Canon got their big chance during the Korean War, when western news photographers stopping over in Japan discovered that the Nikkor and Serenar lenses had leap-frogged the then-current Leica screw-mount lenses - and would fit on their Leica IIIc or Contax (at a lower price). There's a reason Leica scrambled to introduce their Summicrons and Summiluxes and Elmarits 1954-1960 (as well as create the M system overall).

I bought into Leica M (20 years ago in March) mostly for the manual split-image RF focusing, and size/weight/noise equation (pre-mirrorless-digital). And the color/contrast of early 1980s Canadian M lenses (which reminded me of my 1970s Canon FDs). Which were really nice icing on the cake, but hardly state-of-the-art.

[Mark T]

5 hours ago, adan said:

...or even earlier.

Realistically, camera systems have always been the MAIN "unique selling proposition." Very, very few photographers ever switched systems because of lenses, because lens technology spread throughout the industry very rapidly, in just about every decade after WW2. Coincident with the arrival of computers to do the calculations that used to take months with adding machines or slide-rules or even pencil and paper.

The Battle-Royal between Nikon and Canon was all about camera capabilities. Nikon jumped way out in front with the modular, professional Nikon F in 1959, and it took Canon a decade to respond (1971) with the F-1. And Canon still never pulled ahead (despite, IMHO, some excellent FD lenses) until they beat Nikon to the punch with the whole new EOS AF system (1987). And both, of course, quickly left Leica in the dust.

Leica survived by having its own unique system (compact interchangeable-lens rangefinder) - which did allow for smaller and generally better wideangles (no mirror in the way). But sold mostly on the basis of camera size/weight/noise.

Now, that doesn't mean lenses are totally irrelevant. Nikon and Canon got their big chance during the Korean War, when western news photographers stopping over in Japan discovered that the Nikkor and Serenar lenses had leap-frogged the then-current Leica screw-mount lenses - and would fit on their Leica IIIc or Contax (at a lower price). There's a reason Leica scrambled to introduce their Summicrons and Summiluxes and Elmarits 1954-1960 (as well as create the M system overall).

I bought into Leica M (20 years ago in March) mostly for the manual split-image RF focusing, and size/weight/noise equation (pre-mirrorless-digital). And the color/contrast of early 1980s Canadian M lenses (which reminded me of my 1970s Canon FDs). Which were really nice icing on the cake, but hardly state-of-the-art.

Thank you! Echoes what I was trying to say in post #21. You may want to shoot Leica for any number of reasons but technical image quality is not one of them. Purchase what suits for convenience/pleasure etc. Almost any picture can be made with almost any systems. Now, someone mention "micro-contrast"...

[lct]

4 minutes ago, Mark T said:

You may want to shoot Leica for any number of reasons but technical image quality is not one of them.

What makes you believe this if i may ask? 

[Mark T]

4 minutes ago, lct said:

What makes you believe this if i may ask? 

Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic (especially), are all capable of producing equal results. It's not a question of what you get. The question is how you get it. Leica M stands out here as being different. However,  as soon as you're comparing SL all the systems are converging to a very similar point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Casey Jefferson]

Fun fact - I was shooting for a friend 2 days ago and used her Fuji XT30 with XF35/2. It's been a while I used such camera and shooting portraits with it was a breeze, so easy, the lens render very sharp images, with very smooth oof rendering. Very affordable lens and can't imagine people want something better. It was also practically excellent as the eye AF was very reliable made shooting almost felt like cheating.

Is the image quality worse than Leica's? Yes and no, but being "different" is a more appropriate word, because the result was very practical and excellent! If I use a Leica M the result will be very different - much less keepers and perhaps end up with the model a little frustrated. 🤪

I still love shooting with my Leica and people can tell the differences right away especially wide open shots. It's also so well suited to shooting on the street. It really takes a hands-on to really appreciate the "different" rendering.