how special of leica glass?

[Patman]

[quote=leicasniper;851156]

Originally Posted by Patman

I've been using long lenses longer than you are years old and know quite well how to handle them but the Nikon auto focus sucks and the lens simply just doesn't perform."

Hmmm. Well, most of the professional images shot over the last 30 years have been shot with Nikons or Canons. Most of those sucky images in NatGeo magazine. Those many Pulitzer Prize images.

While I shoot Canons rather than Nikons professionally, I can assure you that both systems lenses "perform." I can afford to shoot anything I want to, and I actually own several Leicas and lenses, and I shoot Canon. Apparently most of us just aren't astute enough to know our cameras and lenses don't "perform."

I believe I read here that most professionals don't use Leica's because the glass is too expensive and most of the images you see posted are taken with long lenses on the Canon's and Nikons. Tell me how many 50 year old Canon and Nikon's are you using with 50 year old lenses trying too play catch up and how many of these cameras or lens have never been in for repair or adjustment. Prize winning photos are not picked for image quality but for the drama portraided in them and photos in printed media don't reflect image quality because offset printing just can't duplicate the quality of a photo print. I print my own images, did so with film and now digital, that is where I make the comparisome. PS. Good Night my friends, this old man is going to sleep.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by WoolenMammoth

chris, this a bad generalization. The one stress factor that *all* electronic components are tested against is heat. When speaking of the kind of heat inside a car sitting in noon sun in the low desert, you really dont have to worry about the electronic components at all. A battery is going to leak before a diode melts. hundreds of degrees before, actually...

My meter was a Sekonic L-398, one of the selenium celled incident meters. No battery to melt, but the meter was and remains 8 yrs later, dead as can be. I think you got lucky! I've known several others (and Leicasniper just chimed in as well) who lost cameras in Texas and New Mexico by leaving them in closed up cars. I never lived in a low-desert area but the high deserts of northern New Mexico get HOT in the summer and I wouldn't have risked my equipment in the car when I lived in Santa Fe.

[WoolenMammoth]

this is probably getting way off topic, but when you select electronic components for production, one of the primary avenues manufacturers use to sort resistors, capacitors and active components is heat. Before diodes were used to rectify AC power in the 50's, selenium was used. Rectifiers get hot... Im sure that you got a busted meter but if heat set it off, it was at the end of its life cycle, thats all. Electronic components are by design, able to handle heat. After all, the resistors and caps in your meter are no different than the components in the electronics in your car itself. Your car starts in the heat, right? Not suggesting that you are necessarily wrong but that your generalization is far to general, most circuit boards get far hotter and the ambient temperature inside the electronic enclosures is much higher than you would guess. Leaving stuff in a 130 degree car is really not something you should think twice about.

[visiondr]

I've noticed that no one has challenged Darren's (JJKapsberger) comments on wide open performance of Leica's best optics. I'll suggest that there is no better 50mm/1.4 on the market with respect to wide open performance in resolution and contrast all the way to the corners of the frame than the current Aspheric Leica, none, period. That same conclusion is demonstrably true for the 28/2 Asph, the 35/2 Asph, the 75/2 Apo and the 90/2 Apo, etc. No one else's prime lenses can hold a candle to those Leica optics. Now, if that doesn't matter to you, fine. But, there is a difference.

[Patman]

Originally Posted by ErikFive

Well guess im qualified for an opinion since I only have Leica glass incl the Noctilux which probably is the ultimate Leica masturbation lens these days. Either your 21 is faulty or you dont like it cause it has a modern look unlike all your Leica glass. I have owned the Zeiss 21 myself and I found it a great performer.
Your Nikon example probably just shows that you dont know your Nikon camera well enough. You should be able to take the same pics with it as the M8.

What are you comparing it too? If you call that quality glass then you don't know a good image when you see it. PS Use the same Nikon glass on my Kodak and it does a better job, same glass different camera.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by Patman

What are you comparing it too? If you call that quality glass then you don't know a good image when you see it. PS Use the same Nikon glass on my Kodak and it does a better job, same glass different camera.

He's saying maybe you got a bad example of the Zeiss lens. If I were you I'd exchange it at the store for another if it was really bad and everyone else is saying it should be good. Or send it to Zeiss for repair.

[WoolenMammoth]

well, I guess it was bound to come to this on the internet. someone slagging zeiss optics as being junk because it doesnt say leica on the barrel. can some of you guys please check your head. zeiss is not tamron...

[visiondr]

Originally Posted by leicasniper

Ron, what you say might be true about the Leica lenses. But I've never had a client or gallery goer turn to me and say, "My God, Jim, that EF 50/1.4 is unacceptably soft in the corners and look at that MTF, only .58 at 1.4 instead of .60 like the Summilux!

In the real world it just doesn't make a difference.

Why then spend the money on the EF 50/1.4 if it doesn't make a difference? Why not use a Quantaray or a Centon. Heck, even a glass ash tray might just be good enough - and talk about cheap!

[visiondr]

Originally Posted by leicasniper

But beyond a certain quality level, the real world differences in the images produced are not significant.

Speaking for yourself, of course. I assume you wouldn't presume to tell someone else what is and what is not a significant difference. That would suggest... arrogance, immodesty, perhaps superiority? But of course, only users of Leica lenses exhibit those traits.

[M. Valdemar]

Quantaray lenses are Sigmas. House brand of Ritz and identical to Sigma.

Some are very good. Have you tried one?

Originally Posted by visiondr

Why then spend the money on the EF 50/1.4 if it
doesn't make a difference? Why not use a Quantaray or a Centon. Heck, even a glass ash tray might just be good enough - and talk about cheap!

[Keith]

I have three 35mm lenses that I use regularly ... 35mm Nokton, 35mm Hexanon f2 and a 35mm f2 Zuiko that I use on my OM-2. They all perform way beyond my personal capabilities to perceive any real difference in the results they produce so I would be loathe to spend the readies on a Leica 35mm ... Summicron or Summilux! I also would not buy a Rolex to tell time but others certainly do obviously otherwise Rolex would not be in bussiness ... so if that's their bag good luck to them!

As for Ampguy's comment that any optic that isn't Leica might as well be $10.00 ebay SLR glass ... I'm amazed that he has so much confidence in lenses built by a company that apparently can't manufacture a camera with a reliable advance mechanism!

[M. Valdemar]

I have Rolexes and I like them as objects......but any $6 Quartz watch will keep far more accurate time than the most expensive mechanical Rolex.

Originally Posted by Keith

I have three 35mm lenses that I use regularly ... 35mm Nokton, 35mm Hexanon f2 and a 35mm f2 Zuiko that I use on my OM-2. They all perform way beyond my personal capabilities to perceive any real difference in the results they produce so I would be loathe to spend the readies on a Leica 35mm ... Summicron or Summilux! I also would not buy a Rolex to tell time but others certainly do obviously otherwise Rolex would not be in bussiness ... so if that's their bag good luck to them!

As for Ampguy's comment that any optic that isn't Leica might as well be $10.00 ebay SLR glass ... I'm amazed that he has so much confidence in lenses built by a company that apparently can't manufacture a camera with a reliable advance mechanism!

[MCTuomey]

Interesting perspective from one user:

http://web.mac.com/kamberm/Leica_M8_...aq/Page_1.html

Probably off-topic but what-the-hey, maybe the thread needs it.

[oftheherd]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

If you expect a 21mm lens to be as sharp as a 35, you're in for major disappointment no matter what brand you get. Compare a Leica 21 against a Leica 35. The 21 will suck in comparison. Try the Leica 21 against a Nikon 35. Same result, the 21 won't be as good.

If you got a lot of unusable images with your Nikon, I'd suggest you practice your technique rather than blaming the camera. long lenses are harder to use no matter what brand camera you use.

Not to sound insulting, nor to claim I am an expert. I am also not a famous artist. But to compare short lenses to long lenses already sounds suspect. And a ratio you mention would maybe work with Leica against Sun lenses, but I think not. That ratio has to be technique (or the lack thereof). Sorry.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by M. Valdemar

I have Rolexes and I like them as objects......but any $6 Quartz watch will keep far more accurate time than the most expensive mechanical Rolex.

I supect now and then Leica lenses are often bought as 'objects' also!

That said the Noctilux has always impressed me as being a very unique lens. It's exlusive yes ... but that's to do with the price which tends to put it out of the immagination of most people who would far rather spend their dollars on some other horribly expensive photographic item ... like the M8 maybe!

I'm damned if I'd ever spend $6000 on an optic but I do believe that this particular lens may just justify it's price tag and is probably Leicas shining light when you talk about engineering quality and optical achievment ... the rest I can take or leave!

[Dave Wilkinson]

It's stopped raining........so I'm going out to tke some shots...with the J8 !

[M. Valdemar]

I agree that the Noctilux is a nice lens, but honestly, what makes it worth $6500? That's a lot of money for a manual focus 50mm lens, no matter how well it's made. As a matter of fact, the price borders on sheer insanity.

It's not wildly sharp wide open. Flair is well controlled. I agree it's fast. Stopped down a little, it's an excellent lens, but not better than most other good 50mm lenses.

Do you think that if you have one, that your photos will magically improve somehow? That someone will say "GOOD LORD, those pictures DOUBTLESSLY HAVE BEEN MADE WITH A SUPERIOR LENS"? "The MAN WHO OWNS THAT LENS CERTAINLY HAS SUPERIOR TASTE"?

Do you feel that other photographers or girls will be impressed if they see you with one?

Viewed sanely and without prejudice, do you really think these photos are VASTLY superior to results from other lenses? Could you instantly pick out a Noctilux shot?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/noctilux/pool/

I certainly wouldn't refuse one if given to me, but no way on earth could I see myself paying anywhere near retail for one in the hope it will "improve" my photography.

And it's not envy or "jealousy". I have many Leitz lenses and other photographic items worth far more than the Noctilux and I honestly could pay cash today for almost any photographic object I desired.

Originally Posted by Keith

I supect now and then Leica lenses are often bought as 'objects' also!

That said the Noctilux has always impressed me as being a very unique lens. It's exlusive yes ... but that's to do with the price which tends to put it out of the immagination of most people who would far rather spend their dollars on some other horribly expensive photographic item ... like the M8 maybe!

I'm damned if I'd ever spend $6000 on an optic but I do believe that this particular lens may just justify it's price tag and is probably Leicas shining light when you talk about engineering quality and optical achievment ... the rest I can take or leave!

[Keith]

I'm pretty happy with my 1.2 Canon to be honest but I can see it's shortcomings ... mind you at $300.00 they're insignificant when you consider that I'd be struggling to tell the difference between a good Canon shot and a Noctilux shot. Maybe it is just the flare resistance that gives it an edge because if it is soft wide open so's my Canon ... therefore theoretically I'd be coughing up an extra $6200.00 to avoid flare under certain conditions ... nahh!

It would be nice to rent a Noctilux for a week though to see what all the fuss is about!

[rxmd]

Originally Posted by M. Valdemar

I agree that the Noctilux is a nice lens, but honestly, what makes it worth $6500? [...] I have many Leitz lenses and other photographic items worth far more than the Noctilux and I honestly could pay cash today for almost any photographic object I desired.

Well in that case your criticism is somewhat absurd (which is why I am answering to it). What makes those Leitz lenses and other photographic items "worth" it for you? To take up your questions, do you really think the photos taken with them are VASTLY superior to those taken with other equipment? Are other photographers or girls impressed if they see you with them? Will someone say "GOOD LORD, those pictures DOUBTLESSLY HAVE BEEN MADE WITH SUPERIOR EQUIPMENT"? "The MAN WHO OWNS THAT EQUIPMENT CERTAINLY HAS SUPERIOR TASTE"?

At some point you just realize that someone else's utility function may not be identical with yours, and that's it. I know people who have paid more for a FED than what Noctiluxes are going for nowadays. Those are collectors and everybody knows that collecting may lead to economically irrational behaviour. Other people have paid even more for other equipment and justified it by the photographic output, which they liked, but in my eyes just wasn't really worth the money. So what? It's their money, let them spend it.

Philipp

[M. Valdemar]

I buy the expensive stuff to trade or sell. I keep them awhile to fool around with them. I don't pay anywhere near retail.

I'm under no illusion that they are optically superior or will make me a better photographer.

I'm a horse trader. I like to buy and sell. I know the resale value of the stuff I get.

My critique is based on the fact that many DO spend absurd amounts of money in the belief it will make them better photographers.

[infrequent]

@patman - love that black blazer in your avatar. shot from your reliable M8?

[ferider]

Whenever one moves away from specific lenses to a comparison of "Leica glass" vs. Canon glass, vs. whatever, any objectivity is lost. Whether you are in favor or against one brand, doesn't matter - you fell into a marketing trap. Some lenses are better than others, for any brand.

The 35/2 pre-asph is special because it's small. The 50/1.0 is special due to specs. The 75/1.4 has no RF competition either, due to specs. But so do CV 12, 35/1.2 and 40/1.4. Etc. No competition. Forget the price. The specs are special to some people.

As simple as that.

Roland.

[Patman]

Originally Posted by infrequent

@patman - love that black blazer in your avatar. shot from your reliable M8?

No that was shot with a Canon and and by a professional photo journalist who had too take 100 photos to get one decent one that took about an hour of PS editing too make it look real.

[infrequent]

@patman - shame about canon. i have always believed they should stick to photocopiers.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by infrequent

@patman - shame about canon. i have always believed they should stick to photocopiers.

Canon made cameras LONG before they (or anyone else) made photocopiers. I've never owned a Canon camera in my life but I recognize that they make good equipment that a very, very large percent of actual professional photographers use as their everyday tools of the trade. Some of you people need to get a life.