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

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

Bad move. The Leica and Nikon cancel, so leaving the door open to all sorts of unpleasant spirits. Aliens, too. Before you know it, George Noory will be interviewing you.

 

[georg16nik]

Bad move. The Leica and Nikon cancel, so leaving the door open to all sorts of unpleasant spirits. Aliens, too.
Before you know it, George Noory will be interviewing you.

Sterilizing the shelf with silver water, say 33ppm per gallon helps.
But, d700, whoaaaa, my grand kid friends played with those until he showed them some silver prints from the Leica I that I am landing him, now he is introducing them to the real photography

 

[Morituri]

georg16nik, you live on another planet mate.

 

[kminov]

no lens like the leica lens. period.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

georg16nik, you live on another planet mate.

Not to take sides, but are you attacking his statement that an excellent film camera made better prints than a digital one?

Keep in mind that some people aren't native English speakers (kudos for them for posting here!) and maybe express themselves somewhat unsubtly...

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

no lens like the leica lens. period.

If it's true that every lens has it's own signature and each sample as well, you could be right...

While an admirer of Leica lenses, blanket statements such as yours aren't helpful (and this holds true for whatever brand).

 

[Morituri]

Not to take sides, but are you attacking his statement that an excellent film camera made better prints than a digital one?

Keep in mind that some people aren't native English speakers (kudos for them for posting here!) and maybe express themselves somewhat unsubtly...

His childish and un-educated opinions, it's like listening to a 16 y.o. child saying his toy is the best even though he hasn't tried any of the new items, makes me laugh really. He constantly confuses opinion with fact and sits on a horse so high king arthur would be jealous. "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

 

[MattKing]

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

One of the advantages of choosing any good-to-great quality system is that it tends to free up one's choices. Whether one picks Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus or whatever, if one uses cameras and lenses that are well maintained than the results will be of high quality if the photographer's skills are of high quality.

I choose Olympus because I like their optical performance, and because in combination with the Olympus cameras, their size, weight and mechanical operation works well for me in the focal lengths I like to use.

My main kit consists of one of two bodies (OM 2n or OM 2s) and three lenses - a 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/2.0 set. Small, light, sharp and most importantly the focal lengths available to me suit my "vision". I have additional bodies (2 OM Gs) and other lenses (several 50mm lenses, including a 50mm f/3.5 macro that I like a lot, as well as a 75-150mm zoom that comes out from time to time) and in the past have got great use out of three different OM1 bodies, but I use my main kit the most.

What I would stress, however is that even though I think that the Zuiko lenses are excellent, I think that it is the combination of the lenses and cameras that is most important. I would drop them (the lenses) in a heartbeat if I had to use them all the time with cameras I didn't like.

EDIT: so, to actually answer your question , I guess I would suggest that you decide which focal lengths work best for you, and then consider the options available. Any of the OM bodies will work well with any of the lenses, so questions of price, features, pro vs. amateur grade and, most importantly condition would determine the camera choice.

 

[georg16nik]

His childish and un-educated opinions, it's like listening to a 16 y.o. child saying his toy is the best even though he hasn't tried any of the new items, makes me laugh really. He constantly confuses opinion with fact and sits on a horse so high king arthur would be jealous. "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"

Morituri, I remembered a recent thread from You, from 01-19-2011. A thread in which You asked "How does un-finished "fix" film look like?"
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Now, You are obviously still have a lot of yellow around Your mouth and You are too green to talking with me about what I have tried as far as B&W film photography goes.
If You are trying to tell me something else - there is no way I will be able to understand You over internet

 

[kminov]

If it's true that every lens has it's own signature and each sample as well, you could be right...

While an admirer of Leica lenses, blanket statements such as yours aren't helpful (and this holds true for whatever brand).

casual shots at a restaurant, low light, wide open, slow speeds, handheld. film was something long expired. leica m-4.

 

[kminov]

dark autumn day, same situation, same film. 50mm lens. 100% crop of the scanned neg.

 

[philosomatographer]

I almost want to sell my Leica, simply to not be associated with the same kind of blanket-statement-making-zealotry exhibited by some of the posters here. Seriously, guys, get over the fact that Nikon has made, and makes, at least a couple of lenses that are every bit as good as anything Leica has. The Leica-philes here would get a nasty wake up call if they were ever to lay eyes on negatives made with Olympus Zuiko 50mm F2 Macro, 90mm F2 Macro, or 250mm F2 lenses, I'll tell you that.

 

[philosomatographer]

Your images are great, kminov, but by no means out of reach of other systems. They are good because of the light, colours, and clarity. Not because of some magical lens quality. When I still shot Canon, my 50mm f/1.2L could easily match/exceed that.

 

[eddie]

The idea that one lens (or manufacturer) is far superior to another is absurd. It all depends on the photographer's goals. There are some days that my Schneider large format lenses are my best, days when my Rolleiflex lens is best, and there are days when my Diana lens is best. It comes down to what I want to achieve that particular day.

 

[kminov]

I don't know, I just could never get anything quite this nice with anything else 35mm (not that I have tried everything).

 

[dslater]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents here as no one has mentioned this. At 50mm, I don't think a Leica lens is siginificantly "better" that a Nikkor, however it definitely has a different look. IMO the place where rangefinders really surpass SLR's is with shorter lenses - say 35mm and below.
Since rangefinders don't have a mirror, they can be made thinner and the lens can stick well back into the camera. As a result, rangefinder wide angle lenses can use a "simple" lens formula while an SLR needs to use a retrofocus design. The retrofocus design tends to introduce barrell distortion which leads to more lens elements to correct the barrell distortion - often this correction is not complete, or even worse varies across the field leading the the dreaded moustache distortion. All that extra glass creates more opportunity for internal reflections and flare.
In addition the the above inherent advantages of a rangefinder, Leica lens performance wide open tends to degrade less than others - espically in parts of the image that are far from the center.

However, having said all this, you have to realize all these differences are quite small - you really have to look for them to see them - or spend your time shooting brick walls .
IMO the reason to switch from an SLR to a rangedinder system is because you like working with a rangefinder - The viewfinder is always bright, you can see things outside your picture frame, the cameras tends to be smaller and lighter, and you can usually successfully shoot them at a slower shutter speed than an SLR. Also, there are some who prefer Leica due to it's look - different - but not necessarily better. My understanding is that much of this look is in older lenses and due to lack of coatings and Leica favoring more sharpness at the expense of contrast. I read somewhere that modern Leica lenses which are multi-coated and more contrasty than the older lenses have much less of this look.

 

[Vilk]

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.

...in fact, quite often i am not able to tell whether a particular shot of mine was taken with one or the other... which was one of the reasons my leica finally went on the block earlier this year. less babysitting, actually none, with the F2



to the OT--FM+50/2 is about as good as it gets... just got in after a day of shooting with F2+50/2, same thing, only heavier. other beauties that easily compete with that german thing in specs and character: 28/2, longnose 50/1.8, 105/1.8, 180/2.8... i'm sure the list is longer

 

[kitanikon]

My 2¢ if I may...
As my member-name suggests....I've used Nikkors for 50 years now, and it wasn't until I went digital that I used any other brand (I shoot with Canon dSLR bods, so I have a few Canon lenses)....I used Nikkors because all the PJs I worked with did...simple...and still use them on my Canons because thay work as well with the Canon as I do...

....and I may just have been off the main lines of techology and gear talk but I don't recall any discussions about subtlies such as "bokeh" and lens "character" back when I was a PJ....

But it's just such subtlies that I read about now...bokeh, 3D effect, color rendition, contrast and such...and I can see the difference, and it may be THOSE differences that one poster might be referring to when he recalled that people COULD tell the Leica lenses apart from others...It wasn't specified so I'm just guessing here...some lens's bokeh is "busy", jagged and distracting AND TO COMPLICATE MATTERS IT HAPPENS ONLY AT SPECIFIC F-STOPS...

....and so one could search out specific lenses for specific characteristics, and it would be an interesting aspect of one's style and technique that makes one's photography distinct....whether ALL lenses by ANY ONE manufacturer would conform to that 'rendering' would be an interesting technical experiment and test to conduct...but even if so, that is hardly a defense of OP's question about quality as a quantitative measure as upposed to quality defined as the "nature" and "character" of a lens...

Just one example of quality as a quantitative measure rather than as a set of characterisitcs...one can make the case that 50mm F2 lenses are (generally) better than F1.4 lenses because they are more evenly sharp from edge to edge than are 50mm F1.4 lenses....does that make an F2 lens "better?"....well not at 1.4 .....and by F2.8, F1.4 lenses often match the "quality" (quantitatively speaking) of the F2....(and of course F1.2 lenses beat them both at 1.2 even if that lens is soft as clouds towards the edges, even at mid-apertures!)

Another point to be made is how a lens functions....a lens whose focusing barrel that has a shorter rotational range from MFD to infinity than another lens may be easier, or more difficult to use, depending on the USER....A videographer would prefer the more gradual focusing lens, as do many still photogs...others prefer the shorter "throw" because the point of focus pops in and out more readily and so is easier to judge when focus is "spot on".

Any such discussion should take into account these, and other considerations when "judging" one lens against another...

I'm guilty myself, having sold measurably EXCELLENT lenses to take advantage of another lens's "quality" (characteristics)...sometimes as I've measured myself...for example...The 85/1.8 Nikkor-K I had was 1/3 F-stop "brighter" at 1.8 than the 85/1.8 Nikkor-H I also had at the time, so I kept the "K", even though I had had GREAT results with the "H"...and don't think I sometimes wonder, (with just a twinge of regret), whether that was reason enough to "upgrade" from a lens whose excellence was proven by my experience....oh well...

Another "downgrade" I made was going from Canon's 50mm F1.8 MKII (an optically VERY good lens) to the 50mm F1.8 MK I because the wobbly front focusing barrel of the MKII often wobbled juuuuuuust a bit out of focus when I was shooting @ 1.8 whereas the 20-year older MK I version's interior focusing barrel was "tight" and held focus better... but that's part of a problem of AF design, not optics....still, it is that kind of consideration (not to mention that the older version is better built) that one should make when buying lenses...

Finally...I know, I know this is getting a bit long...still....the SIZE and weight of a lens as it fits on the body makes a difference in how well any one person can use it and hold it steadily...often bigger lenses "feel" better on bigger bodies than smaller lenses but that is not a measurable quality as much as quality of preference...

Okay...maybe more than 2¢....hope it was worth it....to someone

 

[kminov]

I myself prefer SLR, and I am really far from the delusion that the equipment makes the picture. The Leicas just have this look, not better or worse than others, but they have character. That's why I said they are in a class of their own.

 

[Morituri]

Morituri, I remembered a recent thread from You, from 01-19-2011. A thread in which You asked "How does un-finished "fix" film look like?"
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Now, You are obviously still have a lot of yellow around Your mouth and You are too green to talking with me about what I have tried as far as B&W film photography goes.
If You are trying to tell me something else - there is no way I will be able to understand You over internet

You dug up a post from a year ago? You are pathethic, took me a week to learn that and move on, since then I've done enough research, I've studied basically non-stop since then, so I know better, unlike you it doesn't take me 30 years to learn insignificant basic things such as sharpness of lenses (for example) you fool, and unlike you, if I do have a question I immediately ask, I don't muck around, and I do have more common sense then you to understand when I spot an idiot. So I just call them as I see them. As I said, you are a bit of a joke and you should learn to separate OPINION from FACT, when you do this, come back, until then, step away from the keyboard. Just like a bunch of other people have said already.

Here is you spot on;

Amateurs worry about equipment, pros worry about money, masters worry about light.

 

[pierods]

One of the advantages of choosing any good-to-great quality system is that it tends to free up one's choices. Whether one picks Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Olympus or whatever, if one uses cameras and lenses that are well maintained than the results will be of high quality if the photographer's skills are of high quality.

I choose Olympus because I like their optical performance, and because in combination with the Olympus cameras, their size, weight and mechanical operation works well for me in the focal lengths I like to use.

My main kit consists of one of two bodies (OM 2n or OM 2s) and three lenses - a 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.0 and 85mm f/2.0 set. Small, light, sharp and most importantly the focal lengths available to me suit my "vision". I have additional bodies (2 OM Gs) and other lenses (several 50mm lenses, including a 50mm f/3.5 macro that I like a lot, as well as a 75-150mm zoom that comes out from time to time) and in the past have got great use out of three different OM1 bodies, but I use my main kit the most.

What I would stress, however is that even though I think that the Zuiko lenses are excellent, I think that it is the combination of the lenses and cameras that is most important. I would drop them (the lenses) in a heartbeat if I had to use them all the time with cameras I didn't like.

EDIT: so, to actually answer your question , I guess I would suggest that you decide which focal lengths work best for you, and then consider the options available. Any of the OM bodies will work well with any of the lenses, so questions of price, features, pro vs. amateur grade and, most importantly condition would determine the camera choice.

Thanks! I am dutifully taking notes...

 

[pierods]

I almost want to sell my Leica, simply to not be associated with the same kind of blanket-statement-making-zealotry exhibited by some of the posters here. Seriously, guys, get over the fact that Nikon has made, and makes, at least a couple of lenses that are every bit as good as anything Leica has. The Leica-philes here would get a nasty wake up call if they were ever to lay eyes on negatives made with Olympus Zuiko 50mm F2 Macro, 90mm F2 Macro, or 250mm F2 lenses, I'll tell you that.

Thanks philo. Should I start looking for these lenses?

 

[georg16nik]

You dug up a post from a year ago? You are pathethic, took me a week to learn that and move on, since then I've done enough research, I've studied basically non-stop since then, so I know better, unlike you it doesn't take me 30 years to learn insignificant basic things such as sharpness of lenses (for example) you fool, and unlike you, if I do have a question I immediately ask, I don't muck around, and I do have more common sense then you to understand when I spot an idiot. So I just call them as I see them. As I said, you are a bit of a joke and you should learn to separate OPINION from FACT, when you do this, come back, until then, step away from the keyboard. Just like a bunch of other people have said already.

Here is you spot on;

Amateurs worry about equipment, pros worry about money, masters worry about light.

Morituri, no worries. I too have been Young and green in B&W film photography.
Since You learned how to fix film ~ 10 months ago, then be prepared for a few more years wet printing, using various types of enlargers, papers etc. etc.
Hopefully, after some more years and after hundreds or thousands silver copies.. You might start "seeing" the characters of various lens types and "get it".
Somewhere around that time You might stop worrying about equipment and even light, since You will be able to control the light, knowing which tools controls what.., obviously after You gain experience.
Take a note again, I am not talking about lens sharpness.

ps: scanning film wont cut it

 

[pierods]

...in fact, quite often i am not able to tell whether a particular shot of mine was taken with one or the other... which was one of the reasons my leica finally went on the block earlier this year. less babysitting, actually none, with the F2



to the OT--FM+50/2 is about as good as it gets... just got in after a day of shooting with F2+50/2, same thing, only heavier. other beauties that easily compete with that german thing in specs and character: 28/2, longnose 50/1.8, 105/1.8, 180/2.8... i'm sure the list is longer

Still noting things down...

 

[pierods]

dark autumn day, same situation, same film. 50mm lens. 100% crop of the scanned neg.

View attachment 42135

View attachment 42134

Kminov,

your Leica makes nice photos and you have a cool avatar...BUT...my question is about b/w! I don't shoot color!

Would you be able to provide b/w samples?