Is it all a myth

Hi Tom,
I can't really argue with any of your comments. I know longer have a stable of Leica lenses, I traded most of it to finance a Contax 645 and some lenses when it first came out. My favorites are the pre asph 50mm summilux M and the 80mm Summilux R. Gorgeous out of focus areas, with good center sharpness, when used at wider apertures and world class sharp at f8. This combination, available in a single lens, can be used very effectively, depending on the picture you want.

I also own a 35mm Asph Summicron, but since my Leica is primarily for people pictures, it doesn't see much use. But some pictures need to be sharp and this is certainly the lens for it. Really sharp lenses seem to work better with color film or digital than with B&W.

I do admit that high on my list of "next" lenses would be the 25mm ZM and finder.

I would be remiss if I didn't emphasize one of the best reasons to own a Leica lens - the superb build quality and quality control. Some of the test reports I've read on the CV lenses talk about decentering which really means sloppy construction.

Either of my M lenses is good for 50 years. I wish I were...

Take care,
Tom

Tom,

QC is a big thing. A lot people dont want to have to worry about decentering etc, which I sympathise with. I am also not interested in having test samples thru the aperture range, corner to corner and on centre to be sure I have an OK sample. The ZMs may be afflicted by the curable wobble in some cases but they seem universally able to perform to spec from an optical perspective. This is often not the case with some CV lenses, esp the 21/25 wides.

I can completely understand why you love the 50 lux pre asph and you are far from alone. I would love to have a wide selection of lenses but cannot afford or justify that. For now my Zm lenses and Mamiya 7 lenses produce images that look fine side by side, which is a bonus, but I will explore more with the 35 2.8 summaron I have (nowhere near as sharp as my 35 biogon at the wider apertures). I would also be tempted to get a Summarit 35 2.5 and see what i think of that as I am in the market for a smaller slower lens .... and it is not toooo much more than the 35 2.8 biogon-c if bought from popflash. The best bit is that a used Zm 35 biogon is half the price of a V4 cron! Still, that Summarit produces such creamy images that it may just be the smooothest 35 out there. tempting for more human focused work. If only they did a 24/28 summarit too....

If the 25 is anything like the 21 you can expect very high resolution and quite high contrast. It will be pretty merciless.... but this is not always what we want. I have the 21 and it is amazing, but not for everything.

I have had an interest in photography since the 60's. For many years I used Nikon F SLr cameras but last year at the age of 60 I decided to change to a rangefinder system camera. I looked at a Nikon S camera and the Zeiss Ikon camera but eventually decided to go for a Leica M system. I bought 2 M6 Classic 0.72 bodies which ideally suit my wide angle to 75mm usage I chose a 35mm Summicron asph which is unbelievable, a 50mm Summicron also magnificent and a 75mm Colour Heliar Cosina Voigtlander lens which is average but there again it was an average price and will get very little usage. I would say to anyone with aging eyesight go rangefinder, only draw back, close up photography but I don't do any of that and if moved to do so I would pick up Nikon FM2n with a 55mm Nikkor macro there are plenty of nice examples around. Back to Leica. Buy through a Leica agent who will give you a guarantee as an M service is about £300.00. I mainly shoot B&W which I process myself apart from some Kodachrome which I project though a Leica Pradovit 300 IR which I have had for over 20 years but Leica M shot Kodachrome through a Leica Colouplan lens, well it just does not get any better

As much as it sounds like pontificating Leica bullshit - I do think that in the right light (read: the light you should be shooting in), Leica lenses have a glow. I use a Summicron 35/2 on my M4 exclusively. This shares equal time with an F3 w/ Nikkor 20/2.8.

For 50mm, which I rarely use, I use an SMC 50/1.4 on a k1000. That's pretty much my setup. If I'm going somewhere or for something specific, I will take the M4/F3 combo almost every time. Do they have different renditions/looks? Of course.

I don't sit around stroking my Leica or writing memoirs dedicated to Ernst Leitz. I use the cameras.

p.s.: I've never been into the ASPH stuff - a bit too perfect/clinical for my tastes.

I think we have to be careful not to mix up lens generations. Sure, some older Leica lenses have glow but there are famous Canon RF lenses, such as those used by Winogrand, that also had similar properties. What makes me laugh is that I still read people professing their love for Leica glow with their 35 asph crons (or similar).... I completely understand Clayne's perspective because it is clearly stated and realistic. I think where the 'myth' part comes in is where people are not objective and clearly make ridiculous statements. Sadly that is all too common with Leica aficionados. Value in the leica asph reputation and the 'vintage' generations are quite separate things and they cannot really be overlapped. Older Leica lenses can be hammered in terms of resolution, flare resistance etc by modern optics from other manufacturers, but what does that mean? Sadly there are still some that would attempt to disagree with that statement and this is once again the myth. The myth also has shifting goalposts. Years back it was resolution, now it is resolution with the asphs wide open and glow with the older lenses etc. In twenty years, this generation of asphs will be regarded as having a 'legendary combination of X and Y'.....

Tom Stanworth said:

Sadly there are still some that would attempt to disagree with that statement and this is once again the myth. The myth also has shifting goalposts. Years back it was resolution, now it is resolution with the asphs wide open and glow with the older lenses etc. In twenty years, this generation of asphs will be regarded as having a 'legendary combination of X and Y'.....

Click to expand...

Agreed on all aspects, Tom.

One thing I've found with the people who obsess on the micro-details of each lens is a matching vacuum of any interesting photographic output by them. Truthfully it'd be nice if all of the gear-freaks/obsessors/non-doers etc. just left the game entirely - but that won't happen.

Tom Stanworth said:

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...

Click to expand...

Virtually all the myths about the qualities of Leica lenses are based on fact. Leica/Leitz lenses along with many other German lenses were based on different design criteria to Japanese lenses particularly Nikkors, there's been a lot written about this over the years and it's never been disputed.

Essentially Leica lenses have higher definition and better tonality, while Nikon/Nikkor lenses have more contrast, which makes them appear at first glance to be sharper due to the micro-contrast but that also knocks the edge off tonality & definition. It was the gritty sharpness of Nikkor lenses which drew acclaim from the photographers who bought them for their Contax's while in the far east during the Korean war.

Lenses making is about the compromises made at the design phase and what qualities are traded off to produce the final product.

Zeiss lenses are closer to Leitz in their design criteria due to their common German heritage, something Zeiss made much of when they re-launched the Contax brand and Zeiss lenses (with Yashica) back in the 70's.

The differences between German designed lenses and Japanese are subtle and only really become apparent with slower sharper films, but there is a difference and the results can be seen in the work of a vast number of well known and highly respected photographers around the world.

Personally I prefer the image quality of German lenses, and that's with LF as well, I'd be happy to use ZM's on my Leica, after all despite being made in Japan they are designed & built to German specifications.

There is a snobbishness unfortunately about Leica's which comes mainly from collectors & gear freeks and keeps prices high, but the reputation is based on quality, both of manufacture and the images they are capable of producing.

Ian

Ian,

I agree - Leica's rep has always been based on quality, but what that quality is touted as tends to shift and bend over time in the eyes of some in a bid to 'keep them ahead no matter what'. Leica lenses of olde are now regarded as having a special glow/bokeh/tonality (and therefore unbeatable in this regard, even tho they are beaten on most technical parameters by many CV lenses) and the newer ones (asphs) incredible sharpness and contrast wide open (also unbeatable...). Leicaphiles tend to regard no other lens as being able to match the character of the old ones or the technical performance of the new ones while seemingly discarding the value of some current (non-Leica) lenses which would appear to be somewhat of a compromise between these characteristics (the list is long). Its a damned if you do damned if you dont scenario because the Leica Legendaires (I like the play on militant term Legionaires...) won't let you compare apples with apples -they keep squirming.

Don't get me wrong here, I own/ed Leica lenses and they are incredible, but there are lenses which are superb rivals in some if not all parameters. Examples would be most of the ZMs and lenses like the UC Hexanon (like a modern coated V4 cron), 28 Hex (like pre-asph elmarit) etc, to name but a few. The ardent leicaphiles will simply deny that these cousins come anywhere near close.

I guess I could sum it up in this fictional post from a leicaphile:

"I love my 50 1.5 summarit for its amazing glow and gentleness wide open and my 35 Cron asph is so darned sharp it hurts - incredible - the sharpest lens I have ever used and i love it. Yeah, the 35 Biogon is clinical and too sharp almost. It lacks the glow of my 35 summaron, which has so much more character. The 35 UC hexanon has too much contrast due to the modern coatings. I far prefer by V4 cron when I want a smoother look." I am sure you know what I mean, but for those who might not:

The UC Hex is known for very V4 cron like character but with more contrast from modern coatings. I have read comparison tests between users who say the signature is indiscernible apart from the higher contrast and better flare resistance.

The 35 Cron asph is known for its high contrast and bite... but thats OK even though it was not OK for the UC Hexanon. The 35 Biogon ZM is all of a sudden clinical because it is sharp and its slight softness wide open wins it no fans because the 35 asph is sharper etc.

when optical weaknesses are in older leica lenses it is called character, when it is on something else it is a flaw. When Leica lenses are modern and sharp, their performance is awesome, when it is from another manufacturer, it is clinical and soulless. We must remember that the old lenses built their reputations upon that performance then, yet many redefine those qualities to keep them current and beyond modern lenses that have outclassed them in the technical parameters upon which the old Leica lenses built those original reputations.

That's where we have to be careful a thread like this doesn't fall into what's alluded to here:

clayne said:

Agreed on all aspects, Tom.

One thing I've found with the people who obsess on the micro-details of each lens is a matching vacuum of any interesting photographic output by them. Truthfully it'd be nice if all of the gear-freaks/obsessors/non-doers etc. just left the game entirely - but that won't happen.

Click to expand...

The bottom line is regardless of what lens you buy it's only as good as the photographer using it. Someone else may get entirely different results & qualities from the same lens.

Some of the very best 35mm images I've ever printed (mid 80's) were taken with Zeiss Jena lenses on a Varex 1000, the client asked specifically that I used ID-11 at 1+2 and at a given dev time.

My own take is many lenses have their own characteristics, you need to learn how to tame or exploit each of your lenses to get the best results. My favourite lens (35mm) is my 50mm Summicron (57/58ish) combined with APX100 or Tmax50 (whoops the so called Tmax100) and Rodinal, this is a combination that seems almost made for each other, and brings out the best from 35mm, only surpassed by using APX25

Ian

Tom Stanworth said:

Ian,
I guess I could sum it up in this fictional post from a leicaphile:

"I love my 50 1.5 summarit for its amazing glow and gentleness wide open and my 35 Cron asph is so darned sharp it hurts - incredible -

Click to expand...

Wow! Did one of those "Leicaphiles" drop a Leicaflex with motor drive and 350mm lens on your foot at some point?


The fact is, different lenses have different signatures/looks and one type of look might be preferred over another, as an individual choice.
Some older Leica lenses do give a "classic" look, if some people like that, why rant about it? If some newer Leica lenses are appreciated by some for their sharpness, what's the problem?

As one of your beloved "Leicaphiles", I certainly don't say Leica lenses are always better than others. Some of my favourite lenses are Leica, some aren't. In many cases, I prefer the look of some Zeiss lenses.
I even like & use Japanese lenses...
Though I find in some cases (especially one brand I particularly dislike - a bit like you with Leica), they can be over-sharp and give a plasticky look (kind of like bad digital). The Leica "over-sharpness", when it exists, looks very different.

Explain Leica/Leitz over-sharpness

Ian

Rol_Lei Nut said:

Some older Leica lenses do give a "classic" look, if some people like that, why rant about it? If some newer Leica lenses are appreciated by some for their sharpness, what's the problem?

As one of your beloved "Leicaphiles", I certainly don't say Leica lenses are always better than others. Some of my favourite lenses are Leica, some aren't. In many cases, I prefer the look of some Zeiss lenses.
I even like & use Japanese lenses...
Though I find in some cases (especially one brand I particularly dislike - a bit like you with Leica), they can be over-sharp and give a plasticky look (kind of like bad digital). The Leica "over-sharpness", when it exists, looks very different.

Click to expand...

I am not anti-Leica at all. I think their products are fantastic. If I did not, I would not have two MPs here in Afghanistan and a number more sitting at home along with various lenses! Its pretty well all I shoot right now(with the Mamiya 7).

My issue is not with people who like products for good reason, but those for whom the 'Leica myth' is an all exclusive paranoid condition which leads Leica products to be hailed for the same qualities that leave those from other manufacturers universally criticised. My farcical post earlier was to highlight this.

I am 100% for matching a lens signature to a print look you seek. I am 100% for using asph lenses if you dig max resolution and contrast wide open. But, where the myth comes in is where no manufacturer's lenses are any good despite possessing some or all of the qualities hailed in the Leica product. My gripe is never with the products themselves.... if it were, why would I own half a dozen bodies and a four lenses? Its certainly not with people who also love their products. Its only with those for whom Leica products are beyond criticism and universally better than anyone elses regardless of the yardstick being used. This is where the mythology comes from. It comes from the fact promulgated by some that by Leica products ar not matched in any regard by anything from anyone else. Once this myth is shattered and an objective approach used, a person may find that their needs are equally or better suited by a lens from someone else. They may also find that the Leica lens remains far an away the best option for them.

Ian Grant said:

Explain Leica/Leitz over-sharpness

Ian

Click to expand...

Bad choice of term on my part...

Perhaps an analytical signature (as opposed to a pictorial one) would have been a better choice.

Tom Stanworth said:

I am not anti-Leica at all. I think their products are fantastic. If I did not, I would not have two MPs here in Afghanistan

Click to expand...

Sounds like a fascinating experience, though an unlikely place to meet very many Leica supremacists...