Does anyone here beleive that Nikon/Canon could make lenses as good as Leica/Zeiss?

[Helinophoto]

Canon lenses are crap in build, plastic and glue gun.

Dude, try something else than the 70's consumer lenses you apparently are familiar with.

The white "L" series are metal and will out-resolve any Leica-lens of the equivalent focal-length......oh wait......does Leica even produce Lenses from 200mm and up?

I would also like to see environmentally sealed, rust-proof Leica-lenses that can be used from the polar regions to the deserts.
And make sure you don't drop anything on the lens-barrel on a Leica-lens, it will create a dent for sure. (the white L's don't crack or dent too easily)

And plastic is the wrong term, it's composite materials, used on the outer shell. It's lighter, more durable easier to form, doesn't transfer heat and cold to your hands that much and is also a product of the 'new' side of the 2000's.

Metal can be nice, but it sure isn't be-all, end-all.

 

[M Carter]

Even Sigma is now making lenses that perform amazingly - computers for design and manufacturing are likely closing the gap.

Samsung did a fine job with their "S" series glass for the NX mount (then dropped out of cameras altogether after producing two fast pro zooms and a big 300 2.8). I assume it's somewhat easier today to design lenses that are optically very impressive.

I have to say though - been shooting 4K video with the NX sensor and the detail is natural and amazing with modern glass. But I've been testing 1960's FL lenses on that sensr, and they're just remarkable. Wide-open, they're still sharp but there's a really lovely softness, like the perfect level diffusion. Out of focus areas are gorgeous, and the color and contrast has something like a "rembrandt-ey" feel.

I don't like using non-quantizable statements like that, and I'll do some more serious side-by-side testing - but something about the color rendering is very strange - like specific spikes in the spectrum are desaturated while others are more vivid. "Imperfections" as far as modern standards go, not something for a corporate video, but for beauty or music video? Man.

Oddities in the color spectrum, spikes and dips - this is what I've always felt made unique tones in the audio spectrum. Listen to Itzhak Perlman's violin tone (or Eddie Van Halen's guitar tone in the early days, or SRV) - there are bizarre dips and bumps in the overall frequency, almost at a micro level - particularly Perlman. It's really kind of "wrong" yet works.

Sorry for the digression, but perhaps when people talk of "sparkle" and so on, we're in a realm that's very hard to quantify but is also very effective, that may need sensitive testing to quantize.

 

[jrhilton]

I look at it this way, Canon and Nikon make amazing consumer/pro still lenses when you consider the volume they are producing them at, and the price consumers pay!

Also Canon's broadcast lenses are very very good. Certainly no complaints from me.

 

[railwayman3]

Funniest thread for a long time.

I haven't had the opportunity to comprehensively test every Leica, Canon and Nikon lens ever made (which I think would be necessary to make any conmclusive comment ?). And what about the combination of every lens with every film ever manufactured, from Orwo to Ektar ?

For my own part I once had a Zeiss Planar 50 mm, made in Singapore (Rollei 35), and my little DMC-FS5 has (I quote) a "Leica DC Vario-Elmar f3.3-5.8/5.2-20.8 Aspherical Mega O.I.S./30mm wide"

Each produce(d) some rather nice images over the years.

 

[flavio81]

Nikon, Olympus, and Fujifilm and Ricoh are all listed as major customers of Ohara glass, which is part of Canon's keiretsu.

• http://www.ohara-inc.co.jp/en/company/overview.html
  http://global.canon/en/corporate/information/group/gr01.html

Thanks, i did not know that interesting info. My respect for Canon has grown even more. Maybe if it grows a little i'll forgive them for dropping the Canon FD mount.

 

[flavio81]

Zeiss (East) got their glass from Schott too. Schott (East) that is. Both formed part of that super-combine Zeiss Jena, that contained Pentacon too.

East germany is Best germany!!

(I'm making a parody of the "North Korea is Best Korea" meme!)

 

[Helios 1984]

This thread reminds me of a passage in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. On a road trip, the narrator's friend finds the handlebars of his BMW motorcycle are slipping. He offers to fix it with a shim from a Coca Cola tin, pretty much the ideal material for the job, but the friend refuses. He doesn't want a piece of junk fixing his dream machine, no matter how successfully. The narrator notes that if he'd cut the piece anyway, cleaned off the logo and announced he just happened to have some Bavarian shims at $60 a piece the friend would have been delighted. Like the guy on YouTube who extolls the virtues of Leica glass, then holds the most impenetrably fogged lens to the camera, seemingly unaware that the cheapest Russian M39, never mind any Japanese lens, would easily out-resolve his scrofulous Leitz. Fairy dust and red dots and $ signs.

+1

Good old placebo effect huhh Fill a carafe with a cheap supermarket wine, serve your guests a glass and tell them it come from an expensive french bottle.

 

[flavio81]

Funniest thread for a long time.

I haven't had the opportunity to comprehensively test every Leica, Canon and Nikon lens ever made (which I think would be necessary to make any conmclusive comment ?). And what about the combination of every lens with every film ever manufactured, from Orwo to Ektar ?

For my own part I once had a Zeiss Planar 50 mm, made in Singapore (Rollei 35), and my little DMC-FS5 has (I quote) a "Leica DC Vario-Elmar f3.3-5.8/5.2-20.8 Aspherical Mega O.I.S./30mm wide"

Each produce(d) some rather nice images over the years.

+1

At the end, most lenses by all the major manufacturers will give you pretty good results and the difference will be more in bokeh, out of focus rendering, color saturation, etc.

I own lenses by Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Mamiya, Carl Zeiss (West), Schneider-Kreuznach, Olympus, Pentacon, and Carl Zeiss Jena, and most of them give very good results (although i have not tested the Pentacons yet).

They will all (if you choose carefully within each brand) give you plenty of sharpness to resolve down to the grain of the film, UNLESS you are those kind of people that likes using Adox CMS 20 (ultra high resolution film), in which case you'll perhaps have to pay a lot of money for a classic Leitz Summicron in perfect shape or another lens regarded for ultra high resolution. BUT THEN you could get superior results by just using a medium format camera with a typical (good) medium format lens, so...

 

[Leigh B]

BUT THEN you could get superior results by just using a medium format camera with a typical (good) medium format lens, so...

Hi Flavio,

That's not entirely true.

Different cameras and formats lend themselves to different subjects and shooting styles.

I shoot Fuji Acros in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, plus Ilford FP4+ in all formats from 35mm through 8x10.

Not only are the cameras and their mode of usage different, but the lens selections are different.
With most assignments I know ahead of time which setup will be optimum, and only take that one.

- Leigh

 

[flavio81]

Hi Flavio,

That's not entirely true.

Different cameras and formats lend themselves to different subjects and shooting styles.

I shoot Fuji Acros in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, plus Ilford FP4+ in all formats from 35mm through 8x10.

Not only are the cameras and their mode of usage different, but the lens selections are different.
With most assignments I know ahead of time which setup will be optimum, and only take that one.

- Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I was just speaking with regard to image quality (in the sense of resolution and sharpness and freedom from grain).

I agree with you when you say that different cameras and formats lend themselves to different subjects and shootings styles. Agree 100% and that's why i use from 35mm half frame to 6x7 medium format. And if i had a LF camera I would use it.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Even Sigma is now making lenses that perform amazingly - computers for design and manufacturing are likely closing the gap.

Samsung did a fine job with their "S" series glass for the NX mount (then dropped out of cameras altogether after producing two fast pro zooms and a big 300 2.8). I assume it's somewhat easier today to design lenses that are optically very impressive.

I have to say though - been shooting 4K video with the NX sensor and the detail is natural and amazing with modern glass. But I've been testing 1960's FL lenses on that sensr, and they're just remarkable. Wide-open, they're still sharp but there's a really lovely softness, like the perfect level diffusion. Out of focus areas are gorgeous, and the color and contrast has something like a "rembrandt-ey" feel.

I don't like using non-quantizable statements like that, and I'll do some more serious side-by-side testing - but something about the color rendering is very strange - like specific spikes in the spectrum are desaturated while others are more vivid. "Imperfections" as far as modern standards go, not something for a corporate video, but for beauty or music video? Man.

Oddities in the color spectrum, spikes and dips - this is what I've always felt made unique tones in the audio spectrum. Listen to Itzhak Perlman's violin tone (or Eddie Van Halen's guitar tone in the early days, or SRV) - there are bizarre dips and bumps in the overall frequency, almost at a micro level - particularly Perlman. It's really kind of "wrong" yet works.

Sorry for the digression, but perhaps when people talk of "sparkle" and so on, we're in a realm that's very hard to quantify but is also very effective, that may need sensitive testing to quantize.

Back in the 1980's I had a Sigma Apo 50-200mm (the white barrel series) that performed very well. I know much of their stuff back then was junk but that lens was quite good even 30+ years ago.

 

[Leigh B]

I was just speaking with regard to image quality (in the sense of resolution and sharpness and freedom from grain).

Hi Flavio,

Yes, in the context of image quality, bigger is certainly better. We do agree on that.

I always try to shoot 8x10 when image quality is the paramount concern.

- Leigh

 

[georg16nik]

I got pretty much the same but mine reads Ricoh 50/1.7 XR Rikenon - some Planar flavor.
Mine is full of flaws as well.
They made them in such abundance and going for $5US in 2016?

Personally I kind of like my little MC Vivitar 50/1.7.

It is chock full of flaws!

 

[chip j]

Hi Flavio,

Yes, in the context of image quality, bigger is certainly better. We do agree on that.

I always try to shoot 8x10 when image quality is the paramount concern.

- Leigh

Image Quality?? A Leitz 1c or a souped-up Durst Micromat (35mm enlargers) have an image quality all their own that I doubt can be duplicated in larger formats.

 

[Huss]

I had a 35mm Summicron.
I always used it with the controls turned up to 16 and infinity, because the higher the numbers the better the quality.
but really, most of the the time the images were really fuzzy, especially when i was shooting really close (because that's what Capa said made the best pictures)
so i don't reckon this leica stuff is so great after all.

Maybe if you were shooting close you should not have had the lens at infinity?

 

[georg16nik]

Image Quality?? A Leitz 1c or a souped-up Durst Micromat (35mm enlargers) have an image quality all their own that I doubt can be duplicated in larger formats.

A fair comparison would be 1c or Durst 900.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

This is becoming the best thread EVAR!!!

... He offers to fix it with a shim from a Coca Cola tin, pretty much the ideal material for the job, but the friend refuses. He doesn't want a piece of junk fixing his dream machine, no matter how successfully...

Right. The guy was unable to realize that one piece of metal was just as good as another. He couldn't get past the logo on the metal.

A spooky book when I read it ~30 years ago - I could *feel* the spiraling descent into madness.

...East germany is Best germany!!
...

What are those cameras she's holding?

...
I always used it with the controls turned up to 16 and infinity, because the higher the numbers the better the quality...

Maybe if you were shooting close you should not have had the lens at infinity?

I'm sure that was a Spinal Tap reference.

 

[Leigh B]

Image Quality?? A Leitz 1c or a souped-up Durst Micromat (35mm enlargers) have an image quality all their own that I doubt can be duplicated in larger formats.

That is so asinine as to defy comment.

- Leigh

 

[flavio81]

What are those cameras she's holding?

Praktica VLC

PS: Spinal Tap (movie) is great.

 

[pdeeh]

Maybe if you were shooting close you should not have had the lens at infinity?

someone on the Internet told me that I didn't need to worry about that because of foc''sle hypers or something.

 

[DWThomas]

someone on the Internet told me that I didn't need to worry about that because of foc''sle hypers or something.

Yeah, just fix it in Fauxtoshop ...

 

[Huss]

someone on the Internet told me that I didn't need to worry about that because of foc''sle hypers or something.

well played Sir!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Dude, try something else than the 70's consumer lenses you apparently are familiar with.

The white "L" series are metal and will out-resolve any Leica-lens of the equivalent focal-length......oh wait......does Leica even produce Lenses from 200mm and up?

I would also like to see environmentally sealed, rust-proof Leica-lenses that can be used from the polar regions to the deserts.
And make sure you don't drop anything on the lens-barrel on a Leica-lens, it will create a dent for sure. (the white L's don't crack or dent too easily)

And plastic is the wrong term, it's composite materials, used on the outer shell. It's lighter, more durable easier to form, doesn't transfer heat and cold to your hands that much and is also a product of the 'new' side of the 2000's.

Metal can be nice, but it sure isn't be-all, end-all.

Bro. I just ditched 50L wich is the plastic hold by gum glue. And white L ain't much better.
Yes, 100L which I also ditched, out resolve any Leica lens. So what? If resolution/sharpens is the only parapemeter you are able to see and judge lens only by it, I don't mind. You are more lucky than me.
I don't hold Leica lenses. I'm using thier focus tabs. And no crap is given about arctic and desert. I'm using my Leica on -28c under snow fall and it handles it well. Only film gets cracked if I'm out for too long.
I dropped my Leica on sidewalk, lens filter became slightly stiff, lens was fine. If you drop your L on same sidewalk...

 

[fstop]

Zeiss, as many of the other manufacturers, bought the glass from Schott which (i think) is part of the Zeiss group.

Canon, as well as other japanese brands, bought from Ohara.

I don't think who made the glass has any influence in the quality of the lens. A photographic objective requires far far far much more work than just buying good glass.

Making their own glass was a big selling point for Minolta, its also why their lenses offer great quality.

That pic of the chickie with the camera would have been funnier if the camera was a TWIN LENS reflex.

 

[Pioneer]

What are those cameras she's holding?

Camera?

Where did you see a camera?