Why are Leica Lenses The Best in the World?

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

Please re-read.  As I stated above (post #18):

Thanks,

H/B

We will have to agree to disagree: there is no such thing as the 'best' lens. Different photographers, different lens taste, different criterias for best. 

Just think about this claim: "The summilux asph is the best 50 1.4 lens". Does this sound true to you? Well it is not. You can replace this lens with any (apo, vintage, etc.), it will still not be true. 

 

[Ko.Fe.]

On March 4, 2021 at 9:20 AM, colonel said:

yes but one always has regrets taking an outstanding image on a mediocre lens. 

"If only I had ........ at the time"

 

 

I have seen Winogrand's large prints from negatives taken with Canon 28 3.5 and 2.8. And late taken with Elmarit 28 2.8.

Content completely triumphs those lenses. But for the one ones his work is not outstanding....

So are even larger prints from early Viktor Kolar and his father LTM Leica beside photos from negatives he took after he got enough money by working hard for M with "better" lens.

VM's photos with LTM Leica are as interesting as with superb lens in Roleflex. 

Photos are only outstanding if they resonates with you. I took hundreds of thousand photos by now. By all kind of lenses. To me it is impossible to say - this lens is mediocre. But to me the content always triumphs..

[plaidshirts]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:20 AM, colonel said:

yes but one always has regrets taking an outstanding image on a mediocre lens. 

"If only I had ........ at the time"

 

Most of today’s lenses are so good I’ve wished for a different focal length at times  but never a different brand. 

35 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

... But to me the content always triumphs..

I wholeheartedly agree.

[Herr Barnack]

49 minutes ago, Ko.Fe. said:

...Photos are only outstanding if they resonates with you. I took hundreds of thousand photos by now. By all kind of lenses. To me it is impossible to say - this lens is mediocre. But to me the content always triumphs.

I will agree 100%.  An awful image created with a magnificent lens is still an awful image.  That is a given.

[lct]

5 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

I will agree 100%.  An awful image created with a magnificent lens is still an awful image.  That is a given.

Awful yes but with 3D effect and creamy bokeh

[Herr Barnack]

1 hour ago, lct said:

Awful yes but with 3D effect and creamy bokeh

I'm hopping over to the B&H website to purchase a digital turd polishing kit (these should be included with the purchase of every Leica lens).   😄

Edited March 6, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Ray Vonn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, lct said:

Awful yes but with 3D effect and creamy bokeh

Brilliant 😂

[lct]

Nothing personal of course

[Ray Vonn]

20 minutes ago, lct said:

Nothing personal of course

Ditto

[john_talber]

This really depends on your intended purpose for the lens.

If you're talking portraits, for example, you might favour something else than a Leica. I've had some of my best portraits out of a Canon 0.95 (converted to M Mount) versus Leica 50s and 90s (of differing eras) across very similar environmental conditions. There's a look that that lens produces when shot correctly, for me, that is hard to compete with. Do I now argue that the Leica glass is better than the Canon glass? Is it optically superior? Lens designers and lens users can argue about what is superior (Mandler vs Karbe / Image Character vs Optics Engineering ). Rather, it's a case of purpose and taste. 

I also enjoy the fact that I get to point the Canon 0.95's ginormous glass eye at the sitter's face. This brings in another element of consideration into the discussion outside my preference for the final image quality that is produced: the handling or experience of shooting with the lens. Would I trade this off for a 0.95 Noctilux? From the images I've seen, no I would not. 'But you haven't used it!', I hear you shout. Perhaps I would like the images *I* might make with it. 

If you're talking street photography, the compact size of a 35mm Summicron is hard to argue with for the image quality you get. I own the ASPH (1st version) - I love the images that it makes; time and time again the results blow me away. Could I say that it is superior to another horse in the race? Most likely. 

This comes from someone who loves Leica glass. 

J

Edited March 8, 2021 by john_talber

[colonel]

On 3/6/2021 at 3:14 PM, plaidshirts said:

Most of today’s lenses are so good I’ve wished for a different focal length at times  but never a different brand. 

Me too. Never wished for a brand that wasn’t Leica ....

 

[Herr Barnack]

If I may resurrect a dormant thread, I wanted to pass along this tidbit to one and all.  Here is an observation that I think answers the question of "Why Leica?" - and answers it well:

Quote

"In a world dominated by soulless, mass-produced and disposable goods, objects that are made by artisanal hands retain a soul and warmth that connects us with our humanity, past and present."

When he wrote this sentiment, Moe Jaber was making reference to high end Swiss made wristwatches.  JMHO but it seems to me to be an equally good fit for for Leica M cameras and lenses.

[rtai]

On another photography forum I posted about how I liked my latest purchase a new Leica 21mm Summilux, and a forum member pm’d me asking why I opted to pay 6 times more over the Voigtlander 21mm f1.4? He wanted advice I assumed.  I didn’t know how to reply to that since I never used the Voigtlander so couldn’t say it was better or not. I am a Leica user not just a RF user or a “Leica compatible” user and though no means a rich guy but will spend the money on photography because it is my only outlet, versus spending money on a watch or golf clubs. If Leica optics offers me that extra then I’ll take it though not all are better than the competitions. These “Leica are better” statements always invite haters who wants to turn everything into a class struggle. Let your photography do the talking for you. 

[cboy]

Does anyone know the level of precision with  leica lenses made in comparison to others like Cosina? 

 

 

[AndreasG]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb cboy:

Does anyone know the level of precision with  leica lenses made in comparison to others like Cosina? 

This would include the tolerances of the optical parts, mechanical parts, assembly and testing configuration plus the respective process capability values (CpK). Most probably Leica and other makers would not disclose such information.

[analog-digital]

Am 3.3.2021 um 22:37 schrieb Herr Barnack:

Why are Leica Lenses The Best in the World?

Are they?

What is "the best"?

[Gelatino]

30 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

When you buy a Leica lens, it only hurt once. When you buy anything else and put it on your M, it hurts every time.

Masochists 🔨🧷🪓 🛒of the world never buy a Leica lens, it obsolutely doesn't worth the money you spent!!!!😜

Edited June 22, 2021 by Gelatino

[lct]

The best compact lenses in the world. The more expensive too. 

[Capuccino-Muffin]

10 hours ago, cboy said:

Does anyone know the level of precision with  leica lenses made in comparison to others like Cosina? 

 

 

Exactly the same. Why would it be any different?

And the past decade’s (lousy QC) track record just showed that Leica isn’t about perfection, and it actually never was.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[ianman]

On 3/9/2021 at 12:26 AM, colonel said:

Me too. Never wished for a brand that wasn’t Leica ....

I don’t get it. I’ve just looked at the site in your sig all seem to be taken with Voigtlander or TTArtisan.