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

[Rol_Lei Nut]

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.

The aperture used depends on the DOF wanted, whether one is using a tripod (available light) and many, many other factors.

Real world: If a lens can *really* deliver at a wider aperture, then it is welcome and I'll certainly put it to good use.

If your style is f/5.6 or less, then sharpness may not be a big issue, but flare and other quality parameters may still be.

 

[georg16nik]

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.

Thanks, the 1st shots were focused @ ~ 20 meters, the last was probably @ ~ 2, All shots were hand held at 1/60 and less, 1st 3 shots are ~ 10ASA CMS20, the IR efke820aura shot was @1ASA. If I need to shoot from tripod, I have Sinar P for that purpose but it happens a few times a year.
I am regularly amazed that quite a lot people set the mark @ infinity. It depends on the emulsion spectral sensitivity, yes, but still..
Again, I want to make a point that I am not talking about sharpness of lenses. In fact I haven't mention that word in this thread.
Yes, Planar might be sharper and most post WWI good performing lenses are roughly based on that, Nikkors included.
If we need to talk sharpness in 135 format, then probably Zeiss murders all.
Voigtländer had some interesting optical approaches but Zeiss killed them decades ago, unfortunately.
CV is completely different beer..- too much sake and sushi in there.

 

[2F/2F]

The Summitar is one of my favorite lenses to use, but I don't understand it's place in this discussion. Not a fair or useful comparison, as the Summitar and Nikkor SLR lenses were not direct contemporaries/competitors of each other, and it is hardly one of "the best" Leica lenses in a technical sense (which is what the OP was asking about). In a technical sense, my '60's Nikkors blow the Summitar away. They are sharper, more contrasty, less distorted, better in the corners, have less harsh out of focus areas when you stop down (and less harsh "star" patterns from point light sources), are much less flare prone (and when they do flare, it usually does not ruin the entire image by putting a big blob in the middle of the frame). Plus they have the inherent SLR advantage of being more easily and accurately focusable, hence much more user friendly in real-world use. And that doesn't even involve looking at the later multi-coated glass versions. I love my Summitar, but it is not something I would even try to put up against a Nikkor SLR lens to determine which company made the "better" lens.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The Summitar is one of my favorite lenses to use, but I don't understand it's place in this discussion. Not a fair or useful comparison, as the Summitar and Nikkor SLR lenses were not direct contemporaries/competitors of each other. In a technical sense, my '60's Nikkors blow the Summitar away. They are sharper, more contrasty, less distorted, better in the corners, have less harsh out of focus areas when you stop down (and less harsh "star" patterns from point light sources), are much less flare prone (and when they do flare, it usually does not ruin the entire image by putting a big blob in the middle of the frame). Plus they have the inherent advantage of being more easily and accurately focusable, hence much more user friendly in real-world use. And that doesn't even involve looking at the later multi-coated glass version. I love my Summitar, but it is not something I would even try to put up against a Nikkor SLR lens to determine which company made the "better" lens.

For a while, I had a prewar Contax II with an f2 50mm Sonnar. I loved that lens for B&W, uncoated as it was.

I am utterly content with the Nikkor lenses I have, for color and B&W. They do all I need. If an old Leicaflex with a 50 Summicron came along at a good price, I'd grab it and use it. But I doubt I'd build a system around it based solely on the performance of the glass.

Saying one make of lens takes the best pictures is as arrantly foolish as saying one make of stove cooks the best food.
Stop obsessing and take pictures.

 

[Vilk]

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.

luckily, nikon made more than one 105. my cron 90 has been quietly fogging up in the closet (one thing leica lenses are definitely better at) ever since the day i mounted the 105/1.8

 

[georg16nik]

luckily, nikon made more than one 105. my cron 90 has been quietly fogging up in the closet (one thing leica lenses are definitely better at) ever since the day i mounted the 105/1.8

Please, show us some B&W shots.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

luckily, nikon made more than one 105. my cron 90 has been quietly fogging up in the closet (one thing leica lenses are definitely better at) ever since the day i mounted the 105/1.8

Actually, there were two versions of the 105/2.5. The first, a Sonnar clone, then a double Gauss type. The later version is supposed to be marginally better at close distances.

 

[Vilk]

Please, show us some B&W shots.

shots? what shots? i thought this thread was about fondling, no?

besides, then you would take the same one with the cron and say yours is better, right? riiiiiiight? nah nah nah, i'm not falling for this one...

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Actually, there were two versions of the 105/2.5. The first, a Sonnar clone, then a double Gauss type. The later version is supposed to be marginally better at close distances.

The AI (& AIS) models are the later version.
IIRC, the change occurred in the pre-AI days.

 

[philosomatographer]

shots? what shots? i thought this thread was about fondling, no?

besides, then you would take the same one with the cron and say yours is better, right? riiiiiiight? nah nah nah, i'm not falling for this one...

I don't think so.

As somebody who has tried such a setup, even on an M3 (best M viewfinder by a large margin) to compose and even remotely accurately focus a 90mm f/2 is, as our american friends will say, a crapshoot at best. I don't use anything longer than 50mm on my M now. Give me my 105/2.5 on my Nikon F any day. The accurate compositional and focusing abilities will more than make up for any optical advantages (and, let's face it, it's a small advantage, as another posted said, the 90 'cron is about a stop ahead of the 105/2.5) the M might have.

This is, of course, a Leica/Nikon discussion. Let's not get started about a Zuiko 90mm f/2.0 Macro on an Olympus OM-3Ti. At anything closer than infinity, the Zuiko, with its complex optical design incorporating floating elements, outperforms the M-Summicron 90 ASPH by a considerable (and I do mean, considerable) margin. The camera is smaller, and the viewfinder bigger and brighter, than any M. Yes, there is life outside of Leica M... much as I enjoy the M3.

Don't get me started on the 250/2.0, which, by all accounts, has never been equalled by any Leica lens of any focal length:

All printed using an El-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8N on Ilford Multigrade paper. Prints scanned with Epson V700. I haven't printed any of my work with the 150/2.5 Nikkor yet (I only quite recently started using that lens, but the quality on the negatives are very impressive).

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I don't think so.

As somebody who has tried such a setup, even on an M3 (best M viewfinder by a large margin) to compose and even remotely accurately focus a 90mm f/2 is, as our american friends will say, a crapshoot at best. I don't use anything longer than 50mm on my M now. Give me my 105/2.5 on my Nikon F any day. The accurate compositional and focusing abilities will more than make up for any optical advantages (and, let's face it, it's a small advantage, as another posted said, the 90 'cron is about a stop ahead of the 105/2.5) the M might have.

Though my comparison involved an *R Summicron*, I never mentioned an M...

Agreed that a FL of 90 or longer is *usually* better on an SLR.

Another advantage of the R Leicas compared to Nikon (again generalising: really need to compare individual models/screens) is generally better viewfinders and MF focusing ability.

 

[philosomatographer]

Though my comparison involved an *R Summicron*, I never mentioned an M...

Fair enough - but I was actually responding to the post targeted at georg16nik, who is a fanatical rangefinder user... The 90 Summicron Apo ASPH between the M and the R has the exact same 5-element design though.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

The 90 Summicron Apo ASPH between the M and the R has the exact same 5-element design though.

Just another clarification: it is my later version "Plain vanilla" R-Summicron which has a one-stop lead on the Nikkor 105 2.5 (also same scheme between R & M in later versions).
The Apo Summicron should have much higher performance (as well as price!).

BTW: My next-to-last version R-Elmarit 90mm 2.8 has a very different character compared to the Nikkor 105 (and the Summicron as well), having much higher contrast/acutance - very analytical and a better choice for sharpness fanatics...

 

[benjiboy]

I doubt if the difference between these two high quality optical manufacturers lenses will make any significant difference in the final outcome of our work.

 

[georg16nik]

philosomatographer, thanks for the shots!

Fair enough - but I was actually responding to the post targeted at georg16nik, who is a fanatical rangefinder user...

If I may add, who also lives on another planet, grew up listening to Elvis Presley, Patsy Cline, Jerry Reed.. and still do
Anybody wants to suggest I should try Rihanna, Justin Bieber or something that nowadays kids are listening to?

Some more Summitar shots. Excuse my Martial Arts Hall of Fame buddies:
Dead Link Removed
Benny 'The Jet' Urquidez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Urquidez , Bob White http://www.bwkenpo.com/

Dead Link Removed
Jeff Speakman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Speakman

 

[jrhilton]

I usually dislike these sorts of threads; they all too often run into pages of heated technical arguments, and it is often hard to compare because lens manufacturing is not 100% consistent across batches anyway. I believe getting out and taking lots of photos will improve your images more than going from one great manufacture such as Nikon to Leica or vice versa.

To the original poster, save some cash, stick with your Nikon FM and 50 mm f/2, a great combination, get out and take some photos before it gets any more expensive to do so. You may get a slight improvement by going to another system, but unless you are comparing a photo shot by two systems side by side who is ever going to know, or care?

It reminds me of what I sometimes see at my local camera club, you get a few people who will spend the whole evening debating which system is the best, and which lens out resolves another, and why their photos are technically better because of it, but the person who is being adventurous with an old camera that was picked up at a charity shop for next to nothing is actually taking more creative and exciting photos, because he is getting out and shooting a lot more, and not worrying all the time that the quality isn’t as good as it could be.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Wow. Leica and Nikon images that look like they were taken with high-end Canon DSLRs. This thread reached ridiculous and useless extremes I never thought it could.

 

[georg16nik]

Wow. Leica and Nikon images that look like they were taken with high-end Canon DSLRs.

nah, the Nikon shots might look like coming from whatever You say...but my shots are even worse than a high-end iPhone
I am so ashamed...

 

[Bernard_61]

Leica lenses have certainly the most pleasant overall look

 

[rakeshmravi]

Forget all about the lens sharpness in the 35mm world. Even with the top Zeiss and top Nikon, you won't see any difference. The camera differences are much more significant.

Unless you move to MF, you won't see the diff among the top 35mm makers in the lens.

 

[vpwphoto]

When you get into this relm... I think "sample" differences can come into play.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Forget all about the lens sharpness in the 35mm world. Even with the top Zeiss and top Nikon, you won't see any difference. The camera differences are much more significant.

Unless you move to MF, you won't see the diff among the top 35mm makers in the lens.

Really. I remember the same argument about Leica vs. .... in photo magazines in the early 70s. Gun magazines have the eternal "Is the 30-30 adequate for deer" discussion, and so on. The most important piece of equipment is between your ears; go out and take some pictures.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Forget all about the lens sharpness in the 35mm world. Even with the top Zeiss and top Nikon, you won't see any difference. The camera differences are much more significant.

Unless you move to MF, you won't see the diff among the top 35mm makers in the lens.

I can see very clear differences between different lenses wide open and in difficult (contre-jour) light situations...
Maybe at f/8.0 the differences are minor (main exception being corners in very wide angle lenses), but it's speed you pay for.

Once the basic premises are satisfied (light -tightness, film planearity, etc.), camera differences *can* be significant in terms of mirror & shutter slap, focusing ability and type of metering used.
However, if a camera is used on a tripod, very carefully focused and the metering is done with a handheld meter, *HOW* are camera differences more significant than lens differences in the final result?

 

[philosomatographer]

However, if a camera is used on a tripod, very carefully focused and the metering is done with a handheld meter, *HOW* are camera differences more significant than lens differences in the final result?

I agree. I do imagine, however, that he is referring to film format differences (and not, for example, differences between 35mm cameras).

 

[keithwms]

Rakeshmravi, I am not buying what you said; I see noticeable differences just between different Nikon lenses... e.g the many different 50mm lenses. Granted, the differences have more to do with out of focus rendition and such. But for 35mm, the optical quality of the lens most certainly does matter, if you really want the best performance. If anybody is tired of 35mm brandwanking then they should shoot LF, that's where lens differences matter far less, at least in terms of value per dollar.

Anyway, people just need to try things and see for themselves. Don't take my word for it, don't take anybody's word for it. Look, even if two lenses are scientifically proven to be indistinguishable, I bet some people will still swear that they get better results with one or the other. So I find these arguments moot. People just have to try them out. And let the results speak for themselves.