I ran a Leica M4-P with a 50 Summicron next to a Pentax KX with a 50mm Pentax SMC f/1.7 for a year, and I had to look in my notes to tell which was which.
I want a Leica film camera, but...
-
A
- Thread starter Steve Mack
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Omega D5500 with Dichroic Head, Australia
- Started by andrewherrick
-
For Sale Two Graflex 6x9 film backs for Graflex RB 6x9 (2x3)
- Started by Alex Varas
-
For Sale Nokton 40mm f/.14 SC for Leica M cameras.
- Started by Alex Varas
-
Under Offer Nikon F2AS + Nikkon 50mm f/1.8 Ai - CLA'd in July 2025.
- Started by Alex Varas
Forum statistics
I ran a Leica M4-P with a 50 Summicron next to a Pentax KX with a 50mm Pentax SMC f/1.7 for a year, and I had to look in my notes to tell which was which.
+1. I shot at last year's Calgary Stampede with an M6 equipped with either a 28mm Summicron ASPH or 50mm Summilux ASPH lens (HP5 in this body) as well as both an F5 (HP5, again) and an F2AS (E100VS) equipped with either a 24mm F2, 35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.2 or a 80-200 F4 AIS lens. Unable to recall the circumstances of each particular roll, I cannot honestly tell with certainty which camera shot which. But, then again, I like to take pictures with my cameras and not spend my limited leisure time discussing resolution, contrast, etc. That said... I love my Leica system (three bodies and six lenses), but I do think that some of the Leicaphiles out there do get a little carried away with the Leica mystique...
Its like you play rickenbacker 4001 bass and fender jazz bass and you cant understand which is which without looking to the headstock.
or driving a mercedes and toyota.
Why dont you take two same pictures with these lenses and post here , we will tell you what you need to search for and which quality you might invest at the future.
Equipment and training is everything at a for example war. If you have airplane but no pilot to fly it , you are a loser at another perspective also like Iraqi army. Buying the latest weapon without trained men , .... etc etc.
I don't have time to play games. I'm only interested in improving the art of my photography, and I'm afraid that has nothing to do with lenses. I was just sharing my experience, in an effort in trying to help the original poster.
You're the one that keeps making claims, so it's your job to come up with the pictures.
I am not the most experienced printer on the planet, but I often get commended for my print quality, and I do have a very critical eye when it comes to printing. And, I can't tell the difference with the naked eye.
Now, go make some damned photographs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upgrade!? Really!
Actually I can't believe this thread has taken on such a life of it's own. Any tog worth his or her salt can make outstanding images with just about any lens.
I've got a Leica M2 and a M4-P with some lenses. When I first got the things I went out of my way to see the difference by
shooting Kodachromes with my F2 with it's (old) 50mm Nikkor and my Leica M4-P with its (new then) 50mm Summicron.
(tripod, mirror up on the F2 and shutter release.)
It is just something some Leica geeks do when they acquire a Leica I suppose. There was no appreciable difference between the Leica stuff and the Nikon stuff.
I did not put anything on a optical collimator or shoot pics of lens test charts because I usually don't take pictures of things like that.
So....big deal! But I like the size of the Leicas and I prefer to take them when I go hiking.
I have owned some of the best Leica glass ever, the 28 Summicron, 35/2 Asph, 35 1.4 Asph & 50 1.4 Asph M mount lenses. I bought them to shoot some 35,000 Kodachrome slides from August of 2006 through January 2011. I also shot Nikon F mount and Hasselblad XPan with the film.
What I found in my very experienced professional eye is that the Leica glass was just a tad better in terms of color compared to the Nikon and Hasselblad in daylight or average light. But when the light got lower, mixed, etc, it came alive, made a noticeable difference. In terms of sharpness, it also made a difference back then. When the project was over, I compared my 35 1.4 Leica to a brand new Nikon 35 1.4G on slide film and could hardly tell the difference except for the sizes of the lenses.
That was with slide film, where I believe Leica glass makes the biggest difference. With color negative, and digital, there was far less of a difference so I sold most of it, re-tooled to a much smaller kit and then shot black and white for a year. What I saw with black and white film was much like what several on here are saying like Thomas. It just did not make that big of a difference in the final neg scan or print, it REALLY did NOT. I either carried the image with my talent or I did not, the lens did not matter nearly as much with black and white film as it did with color slide.
So again, I sold almost all of the small kit I had re-tooled about this time last year. What I have left is a M3, 50mm Collapsable Summicron and a KILLER Zeiss 50mm F/2 ZM. Honestly, I wished I had the Zeiss 50/2 instead of the pricey Leica 50mm 1.4 asph LHSA when shooting Kodachrome. It is lighter, just as sharp at F/2 for the most part and has third stop aperture increments which would have been stellar for Kodachrome.
If you do a side by side test and keep it purely scientific *and* shoot black and white film, you might find a slight difference in the lenses, but that is it. For example, the Zeiss 35/2 is supposedly a bit better in the center than the $3,000+ Leica 35mm F/2 Summicron Asph. The Leica is better in the corners. The Zeiss 50mm F/2 Planar is simply amazing, many great Leica shooters like it equally to the 50 Summicron. But I also kept the old 1956 Collapsable, mine is a rare clean one with a trace of cleaning marks and that is it. I love the old world look of it wide open and it is darn sharp from F/4 on down, but it flares like a Coke Bottle, hence my using the Zeiss instead.
I had a wonderful time shooting Leica with Kodachrome, but when it was done, that overpriced gear was sold off as quick as I could get it done. If you have the money, don't mind babying the gear because collectors get ticked if you so much as put a paint mark on the lens, go for it. But if you are like some of us on here who are TRULY photographers and put the final CONTENT of the photograph first, don't think twice about using great glass like Zeiss instead of now GROSSLY overpriced Leica.
Yes, Leica is nice glass and with color slide it makes a marked difference in the kind of light where there are more than 3-4 sources all within a 1/2 stop of each other, it makes things really pop. But for black and white, just not that much.
Anyone who tells you different can kiss the object in this (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I uploaded, shot with the Leica I sold last week
What I found in my very experienced professional eye is that the Leica glass was just a tad better in terms of color compared to the Nikon and Hasselblad in daylight or average light. But when the light got lower, mixed, etc, it came alive, made a noticeable difference. In terms of sharpness, it also made a difference back then. When the project was over, I compared my 35 1.4 Leica to a brand new Nikon 35 1.4G on slide film and could hardly tell the difference except for the sizes of the lenses.
That was with slide film, where I believe Leica glass makes the biggest difference. With color negative, and digital, there was far less of a difference so I sold most of it, re-tooled to a much smaller kit and then shot black and white for a year. What I saw with black and white film was much like what several on here are saying like Thomas. It just did not make that big of a difference in the final neg scan or print, it REALLY did NOT. I either carried the image with my talent or I did not, the lens did not matter nearly as much with black and white film as it did with color slide.
So again, I sold almost all of the small kit I had re-tooled about this time last year. What I have left is a M3, 50mm Collapsable Summicron and a KILLER Zeiss 50mm F/2 ZM. Honestly, I wished I had the Zeiss 50/2 instead of the pricey Leica 50mm 1.4 asph LHSA when shooting Kodachrome. It is lighter, just as sharp at F/2 for the most part and has third stop aperture increments which would have been stellar for Kodachrome.
If you do a side by side test and keep it purely scientific *and* shoot black and white film, you might find a slight difference in the lenses, but that is it. For example, the Zeiss 35/2 is supposedly a bit better in the center than the $3,000+ Leica 35mm F/2 Summicron Asph. The Leica is better in the corners. The Zeiss 50mm F/2 Planar is simply amazing, many great Leica shooters like it equally to the 50 Summicron. But I also kept the old 1956 Collapsable, mine is a rare clean one with a trace of cleaning marks and that is it. I love the old world look of it wide open and it is darn sharp from F/4 on down, but it flares like a Coke Bottle, hence my using the Zeiss instead.
I had a wonderful time shooting Leica with Kodachrome, but when it was done, that overpriced gear was sold off as quick as I could get it done. If you have the money, don't mind babying the gear because collectors get ticked if you so much as put a paint mark on the lens, go for it. But if you are like some of us on here who are TRULY photographers and put the final CONTENT of the photograph first, don't think twice about using great glass like Zeiss instead of now GROSSLY overpriced Leica.
Yes, Leica is nice glass and with color slide it makes a marked difference in the kind of light where there are more than 3-4 sources all within a 1/2 stop of each other, it makes things really pop. But for black and white, just not that much.
Anyone who tells you different can kiss the object in this (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I uploaded, shot with the Leica I sold last week
I had a 35mm Summicron version IV (the famous bokeh king) and I sold it and got a Zeiss 35mm f2.8 C-Biogon. The Zeiss is CONSIDERABLY sharper anywhere in the frame at f2.8 and is sharper at the corners at all apertures. It cost half as much new as the Summicron costs used. I also have a 28mm ZM Biogon and it is incredible too. Haven't tried the Leica 28mm lenses, but the ZM is a hell of a lot better than the Nikon and Olympus 28mm f2.8 lenses I have.
I have a Summicron 35 IV and will *not* sell it because I appreciate it's draw and feel. That being said, I love my Nikkors, and I sure as hell love my Rokkors! Leica freaks who insist only Leica is the best have probably never laid a finger on Minolta or Zeiss glass.
fotget leica.it's overrated
Sorry, what do you mean by "substitute"? What kind of look are you going for?
1100 Dollars is enough to buy the lenses I've mentioned before the Summaron and the Summarit ( a fast lens 1.5) as well as a 4/90mm Elmar they might not be the sharpest lenses in fact I am sure that most of today's Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses are sharper but they have the Leica look. Leica never was the sharpness King imho but in terms of the way they render a scene they are unique and can't be compared to other lenses. One can always recongnize the look of a 35mm Summicron or the much cheaper Summaron, the Summarit has an old style look. Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses are superb but I feel that they don't have a distinct look or at least not as distinct as Leica lenses. Maybe somone can rent you a Leica kit and different lenses. The end result is the important thing not the way you got there , sorry Citroen.
Dominik
Dominik
Heh, this thread is somewhat funny, reminds me of endless threads on dpreview, where people are measurbating and pxel-peeping (grain peeping in the case of apug 
).
I have a Leica-CL with a (gosh!) Voigtländer Nokton Classic f1.4 S.C.
The lens is from 2004 I think, excellent glass for the most part.
For the record; Any fairly well-made prime-lens will out-resolve the film anyway, what you are left to judge then, is contrast, color rendition and bokeh (and build/operation quality).
I am sure the Leica lenses are excellent lenses, but I seriously doubt you will see any difference at all from a different branded lens, as long as it is a quality one.
Sure, having an "All Leica" is perhaps the "best" according to the purists, but in the end, it's a light-tight box with a lens and a logo.
Whether it says "Leica" on the logo or not, is imo more or less a fashion statement.
Yes, build quality and yadi-yada, I know.....I know. If you want to have a "pure Leica package", be prepared to pay, if you are sensible and interested in taking actual photos while saving some money, look at Leica-cam + different branded lens. (still expensive, but you'll have money for film later)
).I have a Leica-CL with a (gosh!) Voigtländer Nokton Classic f1.4 S.C.
The lens is from 2004 I think, excellent glass for the most part.
For the record; Any fairly well-made prime-lens will out-resolve the film anyway, what you are left to judge then, is contrast, color rendition and bokeh (and build/operation quality).
I am sure the Leica lenses are excellent lenses, but I seriously doubt you will see any difference at all from a different branded lens, as long as it is a quality one.
Sure, having an "All Leica" is perhaps the "best" according to the purists, but in the end, it's a light-tight box with a lens and a logo.
Whether it says "Leica" on the logo or not, is imo more or less a fashion statement.
Yes, build quality and yadi-yada, I know.....I know. If you want to have a "pure Leica package", be prepared to pay, if you are sensible and interested in taking actual photos while saving some money, look at Leica-cam + different branded lens. (still expensive, but you'll have money for film later)
While Zeiss lenses are more than acceptable alternatives to Leica ones (there are often some differences in signature, etc., but the choice is more down to taste), Zeiss one are hard to find used and used Leica lenses can sometimes be cheaper.
Depending on what lenses you're looking for, but here (in Europe) l've seen 35mm Summicrons going for less than 500 in reputable shops.
P.S. My experience with Voigtlaender wides is that they are good for their price, but really vignette a LOT!
Depending on what lenses you're looking for, but here (in Europe) l've seen 35mm Summicrons going for less than 500 in reputable shops.
P.S. My experience with Voigtlaender wides is that they are good for their price, but really vignette a LOT!
Last edited by a moderator:
Leica's biggest competition are used Leica lenses
I remember reading somewhere that Henry Ford had to drastically reduce the price of new Model Ts when they became popular due to the large number of secondhand models becoming available.
Steve.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,101
- Format
- Multi Format
Whether it says "Leica" on the logo or not, is imo more or less a fashion statement.
Yes, build quality and yadi-yada, I know.....I know.
I wonder if they will consider it fashion statement to simply print the facts for most of their (post 60s) stuff.. Manufactured in Portugal (in small type) and Assembled in Germany (in big letters).
Making book here, anyone want in on this action? We are at 5 of 7 pages. Even money on making all 7 pages, 2 to 1 on going a full 15 pages, 8 to 1 on 30 pages of discussion.
One must put up an a Leica M Camera Body, (M2 or newer). Think of it you could win 8, count them 8 Leica M bodies if it goes 30 pages of discussion. Why we could give the OP-ster a free body so he could afford a lens.
I really enjoy APUG, very spirited, lots of knoweledge too. So who wants to mail me their M body to get in on this action?
Lee
leicas are or rich people with beer bellies to show off at the beach. they should sell the neck straps for $1000and be done with it.
-1
Now that is a little harsh.
Ziess rendering and Leitz rendering are somewhat different things. Ziess is punchy.... Leica more suited for a longer tone.
This is from experience and not conjecture.
What about a Leica lens on a Fed or Zorki?!!!
Steve.
Steve.
Wow..if I could only get a dollar for every time these discussions come up, I'd be a millionaire. Cameras and lenses are just tools, and the use of these tools is simply a choice one has to make. What's between the ears is what makes a picture. You want a Leica, get a Leica and ignore everyone here. At the end of the day, you are the one who has to live with the choice, and, as long as you understand that it is not what will make you or break you, you are ahead of the game.
Done it... it's the finders... The fed I used only framed 50mm so I was blind with the 90.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |