Is it all a myth

John Koehrer · Apr 29, 2009

In reference to the release point it's part of what allows the Leica to be so predictable and able to capture the "decisive moment". There is less delay between the release being pressed and the shutter actually beginning it's travel.
The reason is that in an SLR the release button releases the mirror, and the mirror releases the shutter. It's about 10ms VS 30ms.

nicefor88 · Apr 30, 2009

I agree with Frank and Mike.
Besides, what's quality? What about great pictures. Those we prefer because they bring back good memories or because they were taken in difficult situations.
I use a Leica M6 and a Nikon F3 with the same good results. The fist is equipped with an expensive aspherical wideangle. A 1972 50mm is mounted on the F3. They are both sharp, bring fine details to life. I will never part with these.
:rolleyes:

Domenico Foschi · May 2, 2009

Sometime ago someone told me that Leitz glass is wonderful because it's sharp and has a great tonal rendition.
Is this true ? And what are the lenses best known for that?

Paul Jenkin · May 2, 2009

Hi Domenico,

Before I bought my M6, I read dozens of articles that suggested that the 35/f2 Summicron has the best sharpness, colour accuracy and creamy bokeh. Then I read others that argued that 'this model' of the 35mm/f2 Summicron had better bokeh than 'that one'. Then I read that the 50mm version was even better......aaaaarrrrghhh!!

The nice man at Aperture Photographic in London walked me through my purchase and I was (and remain) very happy with the purchase and with Aperture Photographic. I have no issues with the photos the M6 gave me and it seemed that there actually was a certain 'something' that the Canadian-made 35mm/f2 Summicron had that other lenses I've used in the past hadn't. Whether that perceived difference really was there and whether it was 'better' than my current Nikkor 35mm/f2 AF is extremely debatable.

It seems to me that a whole 'industry' exists, centred around talking bol**cks when it comes to Leica and other high-end lenses. They are undoubtedly sharp and accurate when it comes to colour. However, they either do the job you want them to do, or they don't. Leica, more than any other manufacturer, seems to have optimised profit for itself and its dealers by keeping volumes of new equipment coming into the market low. That has also had the effect of ensuring that s/hand gear also retains a very high value.

When it comes to telling lenses apart, however, I sincerely doubt that many photographers could identify which lens took which photo in a 'controlled experiment' using different models of the same 35mm/f2 Sumicron. Nor, for that matter, do I imagine many could identify which took which in a face-off between a 35mm/f2 Summicron and a 35mm Voigtlander. They may spot differences but would it be possible to say, with unerring certainty, which lens took which photo? And which is 'better' or just 'different'?

My period with an M6 was a real enigma. I loved the photos but just got wound up by what I perceived as niggles in how the thing worked. Would I have another one? Probably, yes - but only when I've exhausted my passion for 35mm SLRs / DSLRs and my lovely Bronica.

Sorry for rambling but I don't really think there's an honest answer to your question.

budrichard · May 2, 2009

"Sometime ago someone told me that Leitz glass is wonderful because it's sharp and has a great tonal rendition.
Is this true ? And what are the lenses best known for that?"

Leitz formerly. now Leica 'glass' has changed throuout its long history so it is impossible to give you a concise answer but I will start with the M series and M3 in particular. The M3 was built around a set of M lenses with the 35mm and 135mm 2.8 having googles. These lenses are optomized for wide open operation with the Summicron giving better wide open resolution and contrast than the Summilux of that era. With time, that has changed and todays Summilux ASPH lenses give resolution and definition on a par with Summicron lenses wide open.
As to tonal rendition and 'bokeh'. As a long time Leica owner and user, I was somewhat surprised to see the term surface and gain such mystical adherance over the years. As with any concept, precept or whatever you want to term it that cannot be measured, there is a hint of 'voodoo science' in all the discussions about 'bokeh' or maybe I should say more than a hint. I ignore any discussion about 'bokeh' and some times feel it is/was an attempt by dealers and others with a monetary interest in older lenses to sell these lenses or a particular lens at a premium.
In any event, todays M ASPH lenses offer the best resolution and contrast at wide open apertures of any Leitz/Leica glass ever and on a par with any other lenses currently produced. As to whether these lenses are better than other brands, we will leave that to the niggiling of others who enjoy that sort of thing.-Dick

John Koehrer · May 2, 2009

M3 VF had 50/90/135mm frames. the 135mm lens had no goggles. The 35 needed them to correct the angle of view.
The 135 with goggles was the 2.8 Elmarit which began production in 1963. It enlarged the 135 frame in the VF by 1.5X and allowed 135m framing with the M2.

budrichard · May 3, 2009

John Koehrer said:
M3 VF had 50/90/135mm frames. the 135mm lens had no goggles. The 35 needed them to correct the angle of view.
The 135 with goggles was the 2.8 Elmarit which began production in 1963. It enlarged the 135 frame in the VF by 1.5X and allowed 135m framing with the M2.

What i Posted was "The M3 was built around a set of M lenses with the 35mm and 135mm 2.8 having googles."
I never Posted that all 135mm lenses had googles.-Dick

elekm · May 3, 2009

Those are goggles, not googles. That word didn't exist at that time.

aoresteen · May 4, 2009

elekm said:
Those are goggles, not googles. That word didn't exist at that time.

Yes it did. A google is a number. It's a 1 with 100 zeros after it. At the time it was the largest defined number.

Lee L · May 4, 2009

aoresteen said:
Yes it did. A google is a number. It's a 1 with 100 zeros after it. At the time it was the largest defined number.

Googol is the number, the term coined in 1938. Google was spelled differently so it could be trademarked. A googolplex is 10^googol.

Lee

aoresteen · May 4, 2009

I've use RF gear since the late 70's. Started with a Contax IIA, and have used Leica & Nikon RF gear ever since. The difference is not seen in a scan but in the darkroom when you print. Make 10x15 inch prints and you will undersatand differences in lenses that you can't see on the screen.

I have two RF kits now. My Leica kit is made up of a Leica M4-P, M3 (motordrive), and IIIf RD. My Contax kit is based around a Contax IIa and a Nikon SP 2005. I use both kits. Most often now I take my M3 with a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar and my SP with the 35mm f/1.8. I have the 90 Tele-Elmarit in the bag for the M3. The IIIf has the CV 21mm f/4 on it for wide shots.

For me its the ease of using a RF kit. I just like it. But in pinch I am just as at home using an OM-1 or OM-2 SLR.

aoresteen · May 4, 2009

Lee L said:
Googol is the number, the term coined in 1938. Google was spelled differently so it could be trademarked. A googolplex is 10^googol.

Lee

Right you are! I stand corrected. Those pesky guys at Google have ruined every thing!

Lee L · May 4, 2009

aoresteen said:
Right you are! I stand corrected. Those pesky guys at Google have ruined every thing!

Yeah, why couldn't they have misspelled ten duotrigintillion and used that for their corporate name.

Lee

elekm · May 4, 2009

Yep, that's right. In any case, we wore goggles and not googles.

John Koehrer · May 5, 2009

budrichard said:
What i Posted was "The M3 was built around a set of M lenses with the 35mm and 135mm 2.8 having googles."
I never Posted that all 135mm lenses had googles.-Dick

But, The 135 for the M3 didn't have goggles. The 135/2.8 wasn't introduced until 1963. Nine years after the M3.
So your statement that "the M3 was built around a set of lenses with the 35mm and 135mm having goggles" is incorrect. It suggests that the 135/2.8 was delivered concurrently with the M3 which it wasn't.

Don't forget Barney Google, guys He was a comic strip character.

PKM-25 · May 5, 2009

In July of 2006, I had a desire to try out Leica based solely on the glass. So I got an M6 classic and 35 Summicron, version 2. I was hoping it was all a hype and myth and that I would sell the camera, move on and save some money.

Well, I sold the camera alright and I upgraded to all aspheric lenses, an M6TTL, MP-3 kit with the LHSA 50 and two M3's.

I was up late last night scanning some Kodachromes. While one batch was in the feeder, I was marveling at the slides on the light table...there is no myth, and there is a big difference when it comes to shooting Kodachrome with Leica lenses, especially wide open.

budrichard · May 6, 2009

John Koehrer said:
But, The 135 for the M3 didn't have goggles. The 135/2.8 wasn't introduced until 1963. Nine years after the M3.
So your statement that "the M3 was built around a set of lenses with the 35mm and 135mm having goggles" is incorrect. It suggests that the 135/2.8 was delivered concurrently with the M3 which it wasn't.

Don't forget Barney Google, guys He was a comic strip character.

"suggests" is in the mind of the reader, the statement was specifically worded that way. If I had said that the M3 was 'introduced' with the 135mm 2.8 I could understand your concern but other than that, your Post was useless Internet chatter. EOT

John Koehrer · May 6, 2009

budrichard,
Just learn to write a clear(no room for interpretation) sentence and you wno't have to worry about useless internet chatter.

Robert Budding · May 6, 2009

I opted for a Mamiya 7 II myself. I did have a Contax IIa for a few years, but I sold it after I was seduced by larger film. I do shoot 35mm in low light because the miniature format has faster lenses and greater DOF for a given angle of view.

davela · May 16, 2009

Graham.b said:
I have for as long as i have held a camera, wanted a leica, now me and my wife Anne were talking about pics taken with one and not. On the screen i have to say it is hard to get the real deal as to say.

Anne says they all look the same, neg scan and print, (which is what i do most of). Now is it all a myth of the leica or is there something in it.
This is nothing to do with build quality, so lets except there is a difference there and Leica will win there.
I use a bessa R and have a lot of fun with it this is all about like for like in picture quality.

I do except that the glass is the most important part of the whole taken, but i do notice that there CV users with M glass and then there is the others, M camera and CV glass. I am missing something here.

Is the Bessa (CV) with M glass the same as M Leica with M glass and CV glass.
It dose read de-fragmented but i guess some one will know what i am trying to get to.

Graham

Get a M2 or M3, and a Leica M lens or two and you won't be dissapointed. Their lenses all range from good to phenomenal - worth the money if you can afford it.

IloveTLRs · May 17, 2009

I wanted an M3 for a long time, but when I finally got one I found myself not using it much. I have since sold it and returned to Barnack Leicas instead. I like their compact size and enjoy using them much more. I have only two Leica lenses, the others are Color-Skopars (35 & 21.)

My personal goal has been to get the most with the least amount of money. I've found that screw-mount gear is cheap and gives me the results I want. Why should I pay more?

My everyday cameras are usually Olympus Pens, but sometimes it's nice to walk around with a small Leica.

Shan Ren · May 18, 2009

Ah Leica discussions, as much fun as discussing the merits of artists you like and others don't, or vice versa.

OK, caveat, I own two M6 bodies, a 3f (present from my wife) and some lenses. I also own various other cameras, Nikons, Bronicas, Linhofs, plastic cameras etc. All get used for the purpose they are best for. I was interviewed recently and asked what camera I used and my reply was something like "the right one for the job" which is sometimes the one you have with you but lets not go into that. Anyway, does the Leica make me a better photographer/artist. I think that yes, but here is why, I like using it, it encourages me to use it, it feels great in my hands, I know it and the lenses I use backwards, and I feel I have a tradition to live up to when I use it, so I try harder.

Is it for everyone? Nope. I know people who work best with an slr, a view camera or a paint brush. Beside 95% of the photograph happens behind the viewfinder anyway.

Do I use it exclusively, heck no. Is it with me almost always, pretty much.

Is it the best camera in the world? Nope, because there is no such thing. And for anything over a 75mm focal length lens I go slr, but that's me.

Are the lenses great, yes, I can tell the difference when looking at my contact sheets between the Leicas and the Nikors.

My advice, get an M3 or MP, learn how to estimate exposure (good training) and a 35 mm and try it for a while. Worst comes to worst you either have to buy more ......, or sell it, for probably what you paid for it and get something else.

Tom Stanworth · May 19, 2009

Yes, its largely a myth. You still hear people talking about the great Leica glow with their 35 asph cron LOL! Some will add that the 35 biogon is 'soulless' whereas their 28 asph elmarit has such character. Mostly its a case of the Emperor's clothes.

What is true is that the optics are almost universally outstanding, compact and in the case of older lenses can have a distinct look.

I personally use ZM lenses (with some Leica and CV) on M bodies. I bought Leica bodies for the handling, reliability, solidity, quietness and multiple VF mags as well as battery independence. I find the ZM lenses give me all the performance I need and with an excellent balance of smooth tonality and great resolution. This should tell you that you can sidestep the Leica brand altogether if you are happy using a non-Leica body and get great images that are up to the same standard - of course you can. I happen to feel much more comfortable with M bodies than CVs (available at the time in battery dependent form, but the ZI was not), but felt no need to spend a fortune on the lenses when the ZM ones offer the same sort of performance and consistency at a fraction of the price.

Leica glass is great, but don't listen to the idol worshippers who tell you that nothing comes close. Thats complete rubbish unless you are taling about a few niche optics. The camera, once the shutter is fired, is nothing more than a light tight box, so it wont affect the image at that point. What will be affected is your ability to GET to that point. Some vastly prefer the ZI/CVs in handling I might add.

Find a solution that works for you. With Zeiss, leica and CV optics you can get first rate results in any focal length and choose your price range. do I look at results from my late model 90 Elmarit-M and think they have anything special over those off my 50 planar or 35 biogon? hell no.

Tom Duffy · May 19, 2009

Tom Stanworth said:
do I look at results from my late model 90 Elmarit-M and think they have anything special over those off my 50 planar or 35 biogon? hell no.

blasphemy!

I actually think my 50mm pre asph summilux at f 1.4 has quite a signature to it and wouldn't trade it for the world.

Take care,
Tom

Tom Stanworth · May 20, 2009

Tom Duffy said:
blasphemy!

I actually think my 50mm pre asph summilux at f 1.4 has quite a signature to it and wouldn't trade it for the world.

Take care,
Tom

Always the heretic

I am not saying the lens is not superb, only that there are other ways to purchase 'superb'. I agree that certain lenses have wonderful signatures and the lens you mention is well known for that. But so is the 35 1.2 Nokton.

I would also argue that the newer asph Leica lenses have less of a signature to them, other than high contrast and bloody sharp. Some other lenses have that too, but with a slightly different balance somewhere along the way. A lot of the character of olde was associated with imperfections which in modern lenses have largely been conquered.

A lot of people are convinced their Leica lenses are absolutely the best, but how many have also shot Kodachromes or velvia with some ZMs beside their Leicas. its worth noting that quite a few people far prefer colour with Zeiss lenses...

Another factors is how much the sometimes tiny differences matter in the overall imaging process. It seems to matter a lot more to people taking poor quality pictures than those taking superb ones. I am not suggesting that we do not all find a liking for what we like, but it seems to be that those who say that absolutely nothing else will do tend not to be the ones producing the strongest images.

I think an earlier quote summed it up, along the lines of Leica lenses giving support to strong photography, but having been the only big kid on the RF 35mm block for a long time, some CV lenses and most ZMs give the leica glass one hell of a run for their money, no matter what your criteria. Look at objective tests on the 50 cron and 50 planar, 35 biogon and Leica 35s, 21 2.8 and 21 asph..... In many cases people, including testers, feel the Zms produce as good or even better images.

Is it all a myth

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency