Leica lenses vs the best Nikons (for b/w)

[georg16nik]

I've shot for over 40 years with both Nikon and Leica glass. No one has been able to tell me accurately which lens I was using when they see a print. Nuff said.

If You used them stopped down after f8.. most lenses look alike.
However, wide open or 1 or 2 stops from it, there is not a chance in hell to not spot the difference.
Comparing Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer against their japanese descendants/replicas like Nikon, Canon, Mamiya, Papaiya and rest of the monkey names is like comparing Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, Bentley against Ford, Toyota, Nissan and saying there is no difference in the ride and that Mercedes shouldn't cost more than Ford, since they both might take You from point A to point B.

 

[pierods]

If You used them stopped down after f8.. most lenses look alike.
However, wide open or 1 or 2 stops from it, there is not a chance in hell to not spot the difference.
Comparing Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer against their japanese descendants/replicas like Nikon, Canon, Mamiya, Papaiya and rest of the monkey names is like comparing Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, Bentley against Ford, Toyota, Nissan and saying there is no difference in the ride and that Mercedes shouldn't cost more than Ford, since they both might take You from point A to point B.

Let's make simple things complicated then.

Let's say I buy myself a nikon F80, which in turn will accept the latest nikon 50mm f/1.4 G.

Here is the sharpness fully open:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page4.asp

So, in 2009 (when this lens came out) has nikon caught up with [whatever, Leica, Zeiss etc] ?

(I do believe that Leica lenses have a "signature", but I don't care for it)

 

[pierods]

Because you didn't ask

Does 35+ years of shooting with Olympus lenses count?

Yes it counts! Could you suggest a "starter kit" ?

 

[georg16nik]

..nikon 50mm f/1.4 G.

Here is the sharpness fully open:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page4.asp

So, in 2009 (when this lens came out) has nikon caught up with [whatever, Leica, Zeiss etc] ?

(I do believe that Leica lenses have a "signature", but I don't care for it)

dpreview.com, You must be kidding
I find the humor of nowadays kids., hilarious

 

[brucemuir]

dpreview.com, You must be kidding
I find the humor of nowadays kids., hilarious

I agree, it seems PDR quickly becomes a pissing match but I guess if you have good gardening skllz you can weed out some mediocre useful tidbits.

I would blame thi mostly on the users of that site.
Can degrade to rubnish quite quickly.

 

[Dismayed]

dpreview.com, You must be kidding
I find the humor of nowadays kids., hilarious

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/441-nikkor_afs_50_14_ff?start=1

Don't bother me with facts because I've already mad up my mind!

Kinda funny - all this obsession with sharpness on the part of Leica users when they usually shoot handheld at low shutter speeds . . .

 

[Pumalite]

Both: Leica and Nikkor are good. More depends on your eye, your mood, your patience and a good vision of your subject.

 

[georg16nik]

...Kinda funny - all this obsession with sharpness on the part of Leica users when they usually shoot handheld at low shutter speeds . . .

Is that so? anybody mentioned sharpness in this thread?
So, You guys, throwing innocently reviews of plastic lenses mounted on digital bodies, You expect to be taken seriously

And one more thing, I've been competing from the age of 13 up until 19 in 10m Air Rifle Championships, 50m Rifle Three Positions Championships(45 ground part, 75 minutes standing part, 60 minutes kneeling part), and won several times, gold or silver.., then shooting RF with just one hand is like breathing.
Using the best camera optics and wet print with the best tools is a ritual.
If You only scan Your film, You are in no contest situation.

 

[pierods]

Ok let's forget the diagrams and the digital cameras.

So the question would be, do TODAY's Nikon lenses stand up to Leica's?

 

[georg16nik]

Ok let's forget the diagrams and the digital cameras.

So the question would be, do TODAY's Nikon lenses stand up to Leica's?

Your initial question was about Your Nikon lens from the 60's, so I am talking in the context of lenses from that approximate era.
Current Leica or Nikon lenses are out of my experience and interest - sorry.
I think on APUG there are folks who can speak for the recent Leica M glass. Since I am sure they have tried them and have silver prints from such negatives.

 

[georg16nik]

pierods, so You are asking do the current lineage of Nikon lenses, made mainly for digital bodies will stand up against Leica when You shot B&W?
Stand up how?
What do You need from a lens?
IMHO, B&W photography haven't benefited from modern lenses in any way since the 50's. There is nothing that modern lenses provide, that wasn't already "there" back in the days. Seriously, how much better a modern Summicron is, compared to the 1st one, when it comes to B&W?
Lets face it, If You shoot mostly B&W, then probably high contrast, color corrected lens might be the last thing You need.

 

[perkeleellinen]

It's great that pierods has such a simple kit. The 50/2 must produce a nice look, and he /she is clearly happy:

I like my results

Ignore the Leica talk and carve your own path.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Before I read all the answers so far and respond to the more annoying and rabidly pro- or anti-Leica ones....

As a long-time Nikon and now Leica user, the short answer is NO, you won't see much of a difference in most cases.
Your money would be far better spent in buying more lenses and, especially, film.

That said, the better Leica lenses *can* often be better than their Nikon equivalents, but those are subtleties which *could* make a difference in some pictures, but certainly will not make a mediocre picture good.
A good picture depends on you. A lens which adds beautiful bokeh, 3-d effect, flare resistance etc. is just the dressing on the cake.
If you can afford the dressing (which often isn't as expensive as legend has it), go for it (I did), but I wouldn't sacrifice film or additional useful lenses for it.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Ok, I see.

Actually I had thought of trying an Icarex with a Zeiss 50mm, wich should not cost me more than a 100 euros, or (much) less, but then again, how do Zeiss lenses compare to Leicas?

As far as being comfortable with my camera, I can say that when they made the nikon FM, they made it just for me (even though I was not born yet...)

My answer for Zeiss lenses is similar as for Leica above.

Great lenses which can often add "something" compared to Nikon, but not worth sacrificing film or additional useful lenses for.

The newer Leica lenses tend to be technically "better" than Zeiss lenses, though Zeiss lenses often have what I consider a better "look" (in the best cases, a wonderful 3-d effect).
Both tend to flare less than Nikkors (note *tend*: need to look at things on a case by case basis).

Depends which lens the Icarex has: the "Tessar" is actually a rebranded Voigtländer Skoparex (not a bad thing!), possibly the best Tessar scheme lens there is (within the limits of the design).
The Ultron (also a Voigtländer lens) is wonderful, though in my experience more flare-prone than most other "Zeiss" lenses.

In both cases, you won't necessarily get better pictures than with your Nikon, but more the joy of using a slightly wonky camera...

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Now that I'v read all the answers, there were hardly any "rabid" ones!

Just want to point out that "Leica" also means SLRs and SLR lenses, not just rangefinders, and the answer I gave is valid for both systems.
Comparing SLRs to rangefinders is another can of worms and a completely different working style (apples & oranges).

Just about any decent lens from any decent manufacturer from just about any period post-c. 1950 (my 1933 designed Soviet 1.5 Sonnar clone is spectacular!) will give "good enough" results, depending on what you need.
You need to get more experience and, when you start cursing a lens and saying it's not good enough (and it *really is* the lens' fault), *then* you'll know what you're looking for...

 

[philosomatographer]

If You used them stopped down after f8.. most lenses look alike.
However, wide open or 1 or 2 stops from it, there is not a chance in hell to not spot the difference.
Comparing Leica, Zeiss, Voigtländer against their japanese descendants/replicas like Nikon, Canon, Mamiya, Papaiya and rest of the monkey names is like comparing Mercedes-Benz, Rolls-Royce, Bentley against Ford, Toyota, Nissan and saying there is no difference in the ride and that Mercedes shouldn't cost more than Ford, since they both might take You from point A to point B.

I have replied to your posts before, and you compel me to do so again: what a load of nonsense! There are SEVERAL lenses not produced by Leica that are better than anything that Leica has ever made. You're such a Leica zealot. If this blind devotion spurs your creativity, good for you. But it's patently absurd to preach it as the truth.

In a previous engagement, you have even stooped to the levels of arguing with me that 35mm negatives shot with a Leica are technically superior to medium and even 4x5in large format. What absurdity... please give it a rest.

To the OP: I use several systems (Olympus OM, Nikon F, Leica M3 - with the best rangefinder lens ever made, and it's not a Leica - and Mamiya MF and Linhof LF. I enjoy the Leica M body for it's small size, quietness, and beautiful construction. I print in the darkroom (NOT using a Leica enlarging lens, I prefer EL-Nikkor, but georg is now going to chime in and say THAT'S why they all look the same to me) and honestly, lens quality makes only a 5% difference. Your subject matter, timing, and other skills, matter so much more.

Try a rangefinder, they're very satusfying little cameras, but don't fool yourself in thinking your results will be "drastically better" than the excellent Nikkor 50mm f/2. Also, leica lenses from the 1950s usually look like crap by now, fogged up and scratched glass. Only a seriously babied first series Summicron will still be pristine. The build quality of the pre-AI Nikkors has never been exceeded by Leica.

Have fun! Pay no attention to the zealous georg16niks of this world. He is just seriously in love with his old Leicas.

 

[georg16nik]

...
In a previous engagement, you have even stooped to the levels of arguing with me that 35mm negatives shot with a Leica are technically superior to medium and even 4x5in large format. What absurdity... please give it a rest.

Actually, CMS 20 or Agfa Copex rapid 35mm negatives shot with optically good prime lens not only Leitz, surpass medium format Ilford/Kodak/Fuji emulsion in resolution, it is a fact confirmed by many people, members of APUG, APHOG and last but not least, Zeiss.

You might shot with Linhof for a few years now but some of us have shot such cameras for decades
As I said, nowadays kids humor is hillarius

 

[dnjl]

I have heard that having a Leica M3 mounted with a Summilux on a tripod altar helps keeping evil Japanese spirits away from your house. Only works with collector-grade, never used gear though. This is a fact confirmed by many people.

 

[philosomatographer]

Actually, CMS 20 or Agfa Copex rapid 35mm negatives shot with optically good prime lens not only Leitz, surpass medium format Ilford/Kodak/Fuji emulsion in resolution, it is a fact confirmed by many people, members of APUG, APHOG and last but not least, Zeiss.

You might shot with Linhof for a few years now but some of us have shot such cameras for decades
As I said, nowadays kids humor is hillarius

If you cared about results, you clearly never learnt how to use your view camera correctly, otherwise you'd still be using it. And by your own admission, you do not use modern lenses - so you have never shot modern MF or LF lenses. Or modern Nikon lenses, for that matter. Despite what is theoretically possible, i suspect you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about when it comes to modern equipment.

I like how you assume that I am a"kid" - thanks a lot for the insult, old man... go play with your small negatives and your 70-year old lenses, and leave us who have gained a balanced insight by using both old and modern equipment to our more rational discussions based on actual experience. Your ideas are driven by your blind faith in your old Leicas, nothing more.

As I said, that's fine - enjoy the stuff. But the whole community would be better off if you stopped passing your religious, tainted-by-rabid-brand-loyalty ideas off as fact.

 

[Dismayed]

Is that so? anybody mentioned sharpness in this thread?
So, You guys, throwing innocently reviews of plastic lenses mounted on digital bodies, You expect to be taken seriously

And one more thing, I've been competing from the age of 13 up until 19 in 10m Air Rifle Championships, 50m Rifle Three Positions Championships(45 ground part, 75 minutes standing part, 60 minutes kneeling part), and won several times, gold or silver.., then shooting RF with just one hand is like breathing.
Using the best camera optics and wet print with the best tools is a ritual.
If You only scan Your film, You are in no contest situation.

Like I said - you've already made up your mind. Facts are irrelevant!

 

[georg16nik]

I have heard that having a Leica M3 mounted with a Summilux on a tripod altar helps keeping evil Japanese spirits away from your house. Only works with collector-grade, never used gear though. This is a fact confirmed by many people.

Never tried it with M3 but it works with the older ones. Of course not if the lens spent some time in South Africa, since they tend to fog..
Having a trusty Steyr SSG-69 near the altar helps

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I have heard that having a Leica M3 mounted with a Summilux on a tripod altar helps keeping evil Japanese spirits away from your house. Only works with collector-grade, never used gear though. This is a fact confirmed by many people.

I find a Deardorff fitted with a German Goerz lens is most effective. A British car, say an old Jag XK 140 parked in the drive helps too.

On topic, don't underrate the Nikon lenses. The MC version of the 50/2 Nikkor is about as good as it gets, any differences between it and a Summicron will be swamped by technique, most of the time.

 

[BrianL]

I can not agree there is not a visual difference between Nikon and Leica. When I was a member of the local photo club in Florida, my main camera systems were the Bronica ETRS and the Leica CL with the Summicron-C 40mm lens. Most members used Nikon and Canon but most camera brands were represented. The competitions were at the time strictly 35mm transparency as they did not have print categories nor the equipment for mf and lf transparency projection.

When I entered my 35mm transparencies, they were usually from the Leica and several members could immediately point them out nearly 100% of the time as from a Leica. Not so with Nikons, Canons and Pentaxes, etc. Only the Leica submissions and one from another who used Zeiss glass could be identified as to the lens source. All agreed it was a different look, not necessarily better, just different though most like the look as eliciting more emotion than with the Japanese lenses.

I'd suggest looking for a CL with the 40mm lens. These can be had for a fraction of an M body and the 40mm Summicron-C is considered one of the finer Leica lenses. If you decide Leica is the way to go, save the pennies and use the CL as a backup body but, after getting mine, I never had a desire for an M body.

As an alternative, have you considered a different set of alternatives such as moving up to a mf. I'd suggest looking for something like a Rolleiflex T 6x6 and giving it a try. The have excellent glass, lose the sometimes troublesome auto threading mechanism of the Rollleiblex and and less expensive than the Rolleiflex. The downside is the shutter design is keyed to the E-V system which can be an advantage once understood in street photography and other types of the shutter can be used conventionally only not quite as smoothly as with the convention twin wheel Rolleiflex system.

I think you'll find more of a difference in results by moving to a larger format than going between 2 fine lens systems, especially with b&w.

 

[mhcfires]

I have heard that having a Leica M3 mounted with a Summilux on a tripod altar helps keeping evil Japanese spirits away from your house. Only works with collector-grade, never used gear though. This is a fact confirmed by many people.

I guess I'm screwed. My user-friendly M2with its 1939 summitar might just be inviting those evil Japanese spirits into my home. I have tried to balance things out `by keeping both the M2 and the Nikon D700 with the 50mm/1.4 on the same shelf.

 

[rolleiman]

The Contax G1/G2 are about the only (beit electronic) rangefinders that you can use as though you were using an SLR- this might helpen soften the transition.

But do we know whether he's thinking of the M system, or the Leica SLR lenses?

I also use Nikon FM's, am quite happy with the quality of Nikon lenses. If there is a small gain in quality, you have to weigh up whether this gain (if it exists) is worth the enormous hike in prices (if you're thinking of the rangefinder Leicas and their lenses. Although I notice the s/h prices of the Leica R series cameras and lenses are much more reasonable, possibly because they've been discontinued for some years.

Remember, a good photographer will take superb pictures, whatever the equipment.