Guest Ridder Cornelius Posted July 8, 2008 Share #101 Posted July 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fact is despite all this discussion on lenses, be it Leica on M8, third party lenses on M8 or Nikon D700 and their lenses is that 98% of users of each system will not be able to see the difference in image results.... Believe me I have tried I compared my M8 files very, very closely with my D3 files app. taken under similar circumstances and wasn't able to see any difference at all, perhaps with a loupe of some sort, but then whom looks at images through looking glasses .... What I do agree with is that the build quality of leica glass is better than any other brand, but this is what one would expect with regard to the pricing thereof. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 8, 2008 Posted July 8, 2008 Hi Guest Ridder Cornelius, Take a look here Well thank god for Voigtlander and such.... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Ridder Cornelius Posted July 8, 2008 Share #102 Posted July 8, 2008 Having said that, Leica lenses might seem expensive (they are!) short term .... long term I doubt if the cost of Leica glass is that more expensive than VC/CZ lenses ...I still got a huge amount of cash when I sold my 20 year old 35 summicron at the beginning of this year, actually more than I paid for it 12 years ago. Its all personal perception, quality, pricing, brand, durability etc. and from this point of view Leica glass is a good long term investment, but better visible image quality ..... I don't think so Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 8, 2008 Share #103 Posted July 8, 2008 I fully agree that in 98 or 99% of all cases you will not see the difference... But I also want my picture to look good when I have the lightspots in the image or other on-the-edge situations, and that is where the leica glass exceeds low-budget glass. The 28mm is the lens that will be on the camera 80% of the time so I don't want to worry about it performing badly is some cases... What I still do not understand is why people buy a 4Keuro kamera and then put a 300euro piece of glass on it. Its like equiping a ferrari with a fiat ritmo engine. If I had to save money I'd buy an RD1s with leica lenses on it, not reverse... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jklotz Posted July 8, 2008 Share #104 Posted July 8, 2008 For a walk-around lens in good light I therefore tend to use the CV 28/3.5, which is a real gem, especially for the price. I'll second that opinion. Mine makes beautiful images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 8, 2008 Share #105 Posted July 8, 2008 CV is great for lenses Leica does not offer - like the 12,15 and 35/1.2. Or for lenses one is not planning to use that often. I use 21 so rarely that it would be a waste to buy a Leica lens, the Zeiss Biogon 21 does me fine (and is a pretty good lens in its own right.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted July 8, 2008 Share #106 Posted July 8, 2008 First off, Leica build quality is second to none. Second, I disagree with the premise that 99% of photographers cannot tell the difference between Leica glass and Nikon, for example. In our photographs the Nikon comes out flatter and the Leica spunk. Maybe the Nikons (and other manufacturers) get close when it comes to lens mechanics like resolution charts and the like, but there is a difference in the way that Leica lenses draw the light in. If there isn't any qualitative difference besides build, everybody should just buy a half dozen Sigmas and forget about the name "Summilux." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 8, 2008 Share #107 Posted July 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree entirely - my copy of the 28mm Ultron is an excellent performer even wide open. My only complaints are that it intrudes into the M8 viewfinder rather more than I would like, and the lens cap is forever falling off... For a walk-around lens in good light I therefore tend to use the CV 28/3.5, which is a real gem, especially for the price. I actually prefer the 28/3.5 to the Leica 28/2.8. Of course one needs to get a good copy. That particularly CV lens is also built somewhat more ruggedly than the other Skopars. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 8, 2008 Share #108 Posted July 8, 2008 Fact is despite all this discussion on lenses, be it Leica on M8, third party lenses on M8 or Nikon D700 and their lenses is that 98% of users of each system will not be able to see the difference in image results.... Believe me I have tried I compared my M8 files very, very closely with my D3 files app. taken under similar circumstances and wasn't able to see any difference at all, perhaps with a loupe of some sort, but then whom looks at images through looking glasses ....What I do agree with is that the build quality of leica glass is better than any other brand, but this is what one would expect with regard to the pricing thereof. I can certainly see differences among lenses but I do agree that, if one chooses well, there are a lot of very good lenses out there. I also agree that the build quality of the Leica lenses is quite high and, as you say, one pays for that build. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 8, 2008 Share #109 Posted July 8, 2008 I fully agree that in 98 or 99% of all cases you will not see the difference... But I also want my picture to look good when I have the lightspots in the image or other on-the-edge situations, and that is where the leica glass exceeds low-budget glass. The 28mm is the lens that will be on the camera 80% of the time so I don't want to worry about it performing badly is some cases... What I still do not understand is why people buy a 4Keuro kamera and then put a 300euro piece of glass on it. Its like equiping a ferrari with a fiat ritmo engine. If I had to save money I'd buy an RD1s with leica lenses on it, not reverse... Again, if you ever do thorough side by side tests you may change that perspective. Sometimes the $300 lens outperforms much more expensive lenses. Things aren't always as simple as they seem, especially when preconceived ideas take root. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 8, 2008 Share #110 Posted July 8, 2008 What I still do not understand is why people buy a 4Keuro kamera and then put a 300euro piece of glass on it. Its like equiping a ferrari with a fiat ritmo engine. If I had to save money I'd buy an RD1s with leica lenses on it, not reverse... In fact, its a lot more like Honda building a car that outperforms an exotic which costs ten times as much. The Zeiss and better CV lenses are not equivalent to low end car engines at all. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted July 8, 2008 Share #111 Posted July 8, 2008 Again, if you ever do thorough side by side tests you may change that perspective. Sometimes the $300 lens outperforms much more expensive lenses. Things aren't always as simple as they seem, especially when preconceived ideas take root. Cheers, Sean Very true - especially if you go looking for used lenses; I recently got a wonderful LTM Canon 50 mm 1.4 for less than a new CV and the IQ is, simply, great. I am not sure I would rate it as sharp as the 50 Lux ASPH @ 1.4, but is just right about there. The only nit to pick is flatness of field, the Canon may have a touch of pincushion distortion to it - nothing that would show in the 95% of the cases. Otherwise, a superb bargain lens Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted July 8, 2008 Share #112 Posted July 8, 2008 28/3.5 to the Leica 28/2.8. Of course one needs to get a good copy you can't be serious....so I have to go to a shop, ask the shopkeeper to give me 10 lenses so I can pick the best...or what do I do when I do not get a good copy, keep returning it until I have a good copy???? I prefer a more reliable choice. I buy the lens, go home and shoot... And that I don't have to worry when bright lights shine into my lenses, etc andmaybe it is not a good copy. The example I gave above is a an excellent one to prove my point. good reasoning for the less commonly used lenses, buy cheap ones...I fully agree. For ny D200 I have a 50/1.8 "plastik" lens, hardly ever use it but hey, it was 99euro's and for portraits it is great. For the other work I have a 70-200VR..expensive but reliable and great glass... The Zeiss and better CV lenses are not equivalent to low end car engines at all.ok ok I overdid it with fiat Ritmo...say a modern V6 engine. Nothing wrong with them, excellent engines. Just don't put them in a ferrari... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlancasterd Posted July 8, 2008 Share #113 Posted July 8, 2008 you can't be serious....so I have to go to a shop, ask the shopkeeper to give me 10 lenses so I can pick the best...or what do I do when I do not get a good copy, keep returning it until I have a good copy???? Again you are vastly exaggerating... I've bought, and used, 9 different CV lenses over the past 18 months and haven't had a dud amongst them - unlike those people who bought fast Leica 35mm and 50mm lenses and had to return them (repeatedly in some cases) to have focus issues addressed... Ferrari engines can be temperamental :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #114 Posted July 9, 2008 you can't be serious.. I'm absolutely serious. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #115 Posted July 9, 2008 ...so I have to go to a shop, ask the shopkeeper to give me 10 lenses so I can pick the best...or what do I do when I do not get a good copy, keep returning it until I have a good copy???? I prefer a more reliable choice. I buy the lens, go home and shoot... Where did you get this scenario from? <G> Is ten lenses just a number pulled from the sky? One might get a bad sample of a CV lens but more often than not one gets a good one. If its a bad sample then, yes, you exchange. If you're not willing to do that ever than Leica and Zeiss lenses might be your thing - but even then there are bad samples sometimes. But, sure, there's a tradeoff. If one buys a high performance CV lens that costs 1/10 of its Leica competitor than, indeed, there's a greater chance of getting a bad sample. Does that mean one has to test ten lenses to get a good one - of course not. Fundamentally, though, I don't think you realize how good these lenses can be. You've got a lot of company too. Four years ago, many people had the same doubts. Now some know better. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted July 9, 2008 Share #116 Posted July 9, 2008 ok ok I overdid it with fiat Ritmo...say a modern V6 engine. Nothing wrong with them, excellent engines. Just don't put them in a ferrari... You mean the 6-cylinder in a Honda NSX? If yes then I can live with that. If you must stick with a car analogy then lets make sure its a valid one. Old prejudices die hard. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jklotz Posted July 9, 2008 Share #117 Posted July 9, 2008 I fully agree that in 98 or 99% of all cases you will not see the difference... Are you serious? I can see a difference on all of my lenses. They draw differently, feel differently and have drastically different sharpness, contrast and bokeh. If they all look the same to you, why spend the time pouring over these lens threads? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cme4brain Posted July 9, 2008 Share #118 Posted July 9, 2008 Are you serious? I can see a difference on all of my lenses. They draw differently, feel differently and have drastically different sharpness, contrast and bokeh. If they all look the same to you, why spend the time pouring over these lens threads? I am serious about agreeing with the above and Sean Reid. Each lens may be different, and those differences mean different things to different photogs. I think the overall meaning of the thread here is that non-Leica glass is very very good in many areas and costs 1/10th as much in some cases. That reduction in price allows people money to spend on the M8 in the first place! I myself bought an M8 simply because I could by 7 CV lenses for the cost of just one leica Aspherical lens! Without that price advantage, I would not have bought an M8 at all. Also, the CV and Zeiss lenses are surprisingly good, in some cases out-resolving Leica glass, therefore are not to be discounted by blind devotion worshipping at the Leica alter. Mr. Reid did NOT say they looked all the same- did you even read the thread? He said they were GOOD or GREAT lenses, and for a fraction of the cost. Most photogs (unless they make 16X20in cropped image enlargements DAILY for a living) may not notice the difference between M-mount lenses, and for them non-leica glass is reasonable to buy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy pro Posted July 9, 2008 Share #119 Posted July 9, 2008 I partly agree with both sides. On the one hand I agree there are differences between lenses, that can be seen and measured, if that's what your into. On the other hand I don't think all of those differences put together and stacked on top of each other make as much difference as a slight change in light or composition, or takeing the shot a millisecond earlier or later, yet somehow the bulk of discussion is always about comparing lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jklotz Posted July 9, 2008 Share #120 Posted July 9, 2008 I am serious about agreeing with the above and Sean Reid. Each lens may be different, and those differences mean different things to different photogs. I think the overall meaning of the thread here is that non-Leica glass is very very good in many areas and costs 1/10th as much in some cases. That reduction in price allows people money to spend on the M8 in the first place! I myself bought an M8 simply because I could by 7 CV lenses for the cost of just one leica Aspherical lens! Without that price advantage, I would not have bought an M8 at all. Also, the CV and Zeiss lenses are surprisingly good, in some cases out-resolving Leica glass, therefore are not to be discounted by blind devotion worshipping at the Leica alter. Mr. Reid did NOT say they looked all the same- did you even read the thread? He said they were GOOD or GREAT lenses, and for a fraction of the cost. Most photogs (unless they make 16X20in cropped image enlargements DAILY for a living) may not notice the difference between M-mount lenses, and for them non-leica glass is reasonable to buy. I'm not disagreeing with you about the CV's, I own 5 of them and use them regularly. I have read the posts, and made a comment earlier on that backed up your point. For somebody wanting to get into the system, it is a nice option to have. I'm just saying I see a difference in all of my lenses, and I don't make 16x20 prints of cropped images on a regular basis. I wasn't making any statement about which is better, CV, Ziess or Leica. As a matter of fact, I much prefer my CV 50mm Nokton to my 50 pre asph summi. It's superior, optically speaking, to my eyes anyway. Considering I've had to send 2 of them back for replacement, however, would lead me to believe the build quality is better on the Leica's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.