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

[kminov]

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?

Sorry, it was a friends leica, I don't own one, and it was just a couple of expired film rolls I put through it. I thought it might be helpful though, even being in color.

 

[pierods]

Sorry, it was a friends leica, I don't own one, and it was just a couple of expired film rolls I put through it. I thought it might be helpful though, even being in color.

Thanks, I appreciate your contribution.

Many times, b/w is the "great equalizer". Since I have fallen in love with APX film, it's become like a drug, and now I am a junkie looking for the next lens...

 

[Smudger]

"Kicking and Gouging,In the Blood,and the Mud,and the Beer" (A Boy called Sue)

I occasionally refer film neophytes to this site for a quick upskill..
You, 'Gentlemen",and I use this term derisively, are a Disgrace. Hie yourself off to a Low Tavern,and conduct your shabby disputes to a more receptive audience.
What a load of dreck.
A casual observer would associate this kind of invective with the blind belief that German optics would have turned WW2 into a different,more positive outcome.

 

[kminov]

I occasionally refer film neophytes to this site for a quick upskill..
You, 'Gentlemen",and I use this term derisively, are a Disgrace. Hie yourself off to a Low Tavern,and conduct your shabby disputes to a more receptive audience.
What a load of dreck.
A casual observer would associate this kind of invective with the blind belief that German optics would have turned WW2 into a different,more positive outcome.

it's been positive enough for me, I get the right to have an opinion and communicate it freely.

 

[georg16nik]

it's been positive enough for me, I get the right to have an opinion and communicate it freely.

Absolutely!
and some of us are even paying premium $US here, to do so.

 

[pierods]

I occasionally refer film neophytes to this site for a quick upskill..
You, 'Gentlemen",and I use this term derisively, are a Disgrace. Hie yourself off to a Low Tavern,and conduct your shabby disputes to a more receptive audience.
What a load of dreck.
A casual observer would associate this kind of invective with the blind belief that German optics would have turned WW2 into a different,more positive outcome.

I think I understood you don't like Leica lenses, but, being the disgrace that I am, I am not sure.

 

[2F/2F]

Nikon will do, IMHO.

 

[keithwms]

^^^Agreed. Move on.

Anyway, the Leica lenses aren't half as good as the Zeiss ZFs :munch: There, that ought to keep this thing going another 10 pages

 

[dnjl]

 

[semi-ambivalent]

^^^Agreed. Move on.

Anyway, the Leica lenses aren't half as good as the Zeiss ZFs :munch: There, that ought to keep this thing going another 10 pages

Hopefully it will also move the thread to another forum entirely.

 

[benjiboy]

I wouldn't break the bank for any small difference in image quality they are both professional quality optics, "it's the singer not the song".

 

[Tim Gray]

I think that there are some (many?) new lenses from Leica for the M that are pretty amazing. For example, I do honestly think the new Leica 50/1.4 and 28/2 are better than my Canon 50/1.4 and 28/1.8 respectively. But the Leica lenses cost north of $3000. So they should beat the Canon (or Nikon) counterparts that sell for around $300. Note, I don't think it's anything 'magic' about Leica lenses. Just sometimes, they are specced out pretty high (and pricey).

But for the most part, it's the picture, not the lens. I've taken some of my favorite pictures with disposables, fixed lens cameras, and other non-Leica lenses.

 

[BrianL]

I hope all this negative press as to Leica lenses kills the resale value of them; maybe to the point of those terrible Asahi M42s. Also, those Leica bodies are really over rated and a Kodak Pony is far better. Anyone want to sell me trashy M3 with lenses for maybe $50.

 

[kminov]

I hope all this negative press as to Leica lenses kills the resale value of them; maybe to the point of those terrible Asahi M42s. Also, those Leica bodies are really over rated and a Kodak Pony is far better. Anyone want to sell me trashy M3 with lenses for maybe $50.

i might go up as much as 60! waste of money, but hey, christmas time

 

[John Lawrence]

I've never found anything in 35mm that equals or surpasses the quality of my Leica lenses - either optically or mechanically.

John

 

[philosomatographer]

I've never found anything in 35mm that equals or surpasses the quality of my Leica lenses - either optically or mechanically.

John

I agree that the Leica lenses are hard to beat optically, but you obviously haven't used first generation Nikkors, or Zeiss contarex lenses. Even Erwin Puts admits that they are mechanically more durable.

 

[Bernard_61]

The overall quality of Leica lenses is simply the best

 

[Vilk]

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.

go, baby, go! yeeeee-haaaaaaawwww!

ps. all i worry about is immortality and a drink along the way every now and then--what does that make me??

 

[Someonenameddavid]

go, baby, go! yeeeee-haaaaaaawwww!

ps. all i worry about is immortality and a drink along the way every now and then--what does that make me??

So are you worried that you might, or might not, be immortal???

David

 

[Vilk]

not

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Just an attempt to quantify *typical* diffrences between Leica and Nikon lenses, including why some can see no difference between them and some can see *clear* differences.

If you shoot with the lens closed down to mid apertures and with the sun behind your back, in many cases you'll have a hard times disingushing the Nikkor from the Leica.
At or near the widest aperture and/or with more difficult lighting, the differences between the brands *could* become quite clear, depending on the specific lenses being compared.

As an example, I'll compare 4 lenses I've used very extensively and seem typical of the differences one could expect: the Nikkor 35mm 2.0 AI, Nikkor 105mm 2.5 AIS, Leica R 35mm 2.0 (Summicron last type), Leica R 90mm 2.0.
All are truly good lenses and are all capable of the highest-level results.

Compared to the Nikkor 35mm, the Leica 35mm is clearly sharper at 2.0, somewhat sharper at 2.8, handles flare much better (a very important point for me) and has a great 3-d look to boot. I happily used the Nikkor for a couple of decades and it used to be my favorite lens. The Leica is better, but that doesn't mean that the Nikkor couldn't take the world's best picture. And if you're only looking at sharpness at f/4.0 and beyond in good light, you'll barely see a difference.

The Nikkor 105 and the 90mm Summicron (non-asph) are nearly identical in signature and performance, only the Leica does everything one stop earlier. Both are slightly soft wide open (good for portraits): 2.0 vs. 2.5. Both become very sharp closed one stop (2.8 vs. 4.0).
Whether the added (but not extreme) expense of the Leica lens is worth that stop real advantage can certainly be debated.

 

[railwayman3]

The overall quality of Leica lenses is simply the best

Yes, but you could say that about a Rolls-Royce car.

OTOH, spending a fortune on one does not make the owner a good driver, and neither is it necessary or even practical for everyday transport.

 

[Eric Rose]

I feel most people shoot at apertures greater than 5.6 for the bulk of their photography. I realize the "wide open" fad is important to some but for me I only shoot wide open on the very rare occasion when the image I want to create demands that type of look.

 

[georg16nik]

I feel most people shoot at apertures greater than 5.6 for the bulk of their photography. I realize the "wide open" fad is important to some but for me I only shoot wide open on the very rare occasion when the image I want to create demands that type of look.

1:5,6 is something I rarely reach with prime lens.
Some shots from my gal here, sorry for the compressed jpg's APUG is to blame

Elmar 1:3.5 @ 4.5

Summitar 1:2 @ 4

Summitar 1:2 @ 4

Summitar 1:2 @ 2.8

 

[MDR]

Beautiful pictures but not really a prove for Leica's superiority since they were mostly shot at infinty. Leica lenses are absolutely superb but not that much better than their Nikon counterpart from the 1960's. Furthermore the 3.5/50 Elmar is not better than the Contax 3.5 Tessar and definetely less sharp than a well done planar or sonnar design. The Summitar if it's a pre war model is again a beautiful lens and I love it's look but the average Nikon Standard lens of the 60's is just as sharp if not sharper. Where Leica lenses shine in my opinion is the look they give especially the older lenses. Sharpness wise the Contax (until 1960'S) lenses were just as sharp and before the war much sharper than their leica counterparts. Love the Leitz Xenon and 1.5/50 Summarit not supersharp but beautiful rendering.