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

[dehk]

Leica or Nikkor, you guys said it all pretty much. However I'd like to point out there are lots of very nice photos in this particular thread.

 

[stormbytes]

I'm really surprised no one seems to have mentioned the Leica "bokeh" - a top quality of Leica (Leitz) lenses. If you *must* go the Leica route, you might consider purchasing the lens of your choice and having the mount adapted for Nikon.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Some cant undertand which is mp3 or lp. Some world class violonists cant understand which is stradivari or 2000 dollar violin. Some listen Schumann , some listen japanese electronic pop.
If you start playing violin after 10 , you have no luck. List goes on and on..

 

[Bill Burk]

I never got the chance to fall for Nikon, but I am sure if I fell upon a 35 f/1.4 and a slight telephoto and matched it up with a compatible body I'd be happy with the results.

I have always bought lenses to fit the camera I have. So when I had a Pentax, I rented a 35mm f/2 Super-Takumar (the one with 67mm filter ring). The slides I brought home from that trip were so wonderful, possibly the best pictures I ever took in my life. So I bought the lens and it was a favorite for about three years. The Macro 50 f/4 and 105 2.8 were my other favorites.

When that kit was stolen, I bought another brand SLR and picked lenses similar to my originals. Not Nikon, but it would have been a good choice. Not Canon but that might have been a good choice too. Anyway I had to replace some lenses. With no thought given to special image quality I bought the brand lenses - I assumed quality was a given - and it was. The 35mm f/2 of my new system never charmed me like the Pentax, but it was fine. Other lenses of the system did exceed my expectations and so overall I did alright.

I don't get excited about a lens from specs or reviews. I get excited when I acquire one, use it and discover that it takes beautiful pictures. This happened for me when I used a few rangefinder lenses, a Contax Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 and Leica Summicron 50 f/2 and 35 f/2. So I can say they are "all they're cracked up to be."

Once a lens takes beautiful picture for me you can't convince me it isn't the most remarkable lens on earth. I understand how people who love their lenses get the impression they are special.

The real funny thing is now I am shooting 4x5 most of the time and I only pick up 35mm on special occasions.

 

[erikg]

I think you'll find it was you that made the beautiful pictures, not the lens. A lens projects an image but it takes a human to make a picture.

 

[Klainmeister]

This thread is hilariously awesome, literally eating popcorn reading it.

I'll take my M7II lenses and my bigger negs....oh no! they're not Leica! Time to throw it away.

 

[skahde]

The Mamiya can brag with its negative size and sharp lenses in daylight but it's afraid of the dark when the Noctiluxes and Noct-Nikkors come out of their caves.

 

[Pumalite]

I have Leicas, Nikons, Canons, etc. It's hard to tell the difference

 

[benjiboy]

I personally would ask myself a different question than the O.P, like "is my photographic ability such that either of these two fine ranges of high quality optics wouldn't do it justice ?", if you can't shoot excellent pictures with Nikon lenses blame yourself not the lens.

 

[skahde]

I loved my Leica-M lenses and could see the difference to my Nikkors in the projected slides. But the versatility of system was a bit limited and I had to keep the Nikon-System to fill the gap. In the end and after several years it turned out I was a lot more productive with the Nikons and got more keepers, capturing the right moment and the right expression. This more than made up for the small loss in sharpness. This was a bit humiliating as I loved my M6 and tried hard to get the best out of it. In the end I sold my Leica-Gear as I still try to pretend I'm rather a photographer than a gearhead.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Yes, you will see differences but not in terms of strictly technical quality. New Leica lenses can pretty out-resolve any film currently on the market so.

i highly doubt thatan see no evidence of it in leica's mtf charts either!byw resolution is only one aspect. i prefwr sharpness!

 

[MDR]

I usually shoot a Nikon FM with a 50 mm f/2 from the '60s.

I like my results, but many people talk about the legendary Leica lenses and so forth.

Problem is, I don't have the money to buy Leica, so to even try a Leica combo, I would have to save for a year at least.

Since I only shoot 35mm, black and white, will I see a difference compared with the best Nikon lenses?

thanks

As long as you like the results you're getting from the Nikon I wouldn't change the camera system. This is the classic case of the grass beeing greener, I assure you it's not.Furthermore it shouldn't matter what other say but what you like and enjoy, maybe you can rent a Leica outfit and see for yourselves if you like the Leica results better.

Good luck

Dominik

 

[skahde]

Reason is? Both get you a picture and this is what it's all about. Some optics are even identical e.g. latest Elmarit-M 2,8/90mm and R-Elmarit.

 

[keithwms]

Michael that distinction was more true ten years ago or so, but is basically moot now. Corrections are very, very good now. A high end SLR lens is easily en par with a high end RF lens... long, normal or wide. And part of the reason for that is that Bayer digital urgently forced lensmakers to face the problem of chromatic aberration and other issues.

 

[keithwms]

True but there are some ultra-freaking-wide nikkors , even zooms, that are en par with the best RF lenses, including distortion. Lens manufacture has come a very long way in the past few years.

I'm not disagreeing with you strongly, and I do adore my RFs, I am just sayign that it's not nearly as strong a case as it once was.
Anyway, mark my words, we'll all be using RF lenses in a decade or less. The mirror is going the way of the dinosaur, for small format work.

 

[skahde]

You certainly have a point here but what you do is comparing. And everyone can decide on his own if he can live with this kind of distortion for his kind of work or not.

 

[Bill Burk]

Quirks you have to get used to between rangefinders and SLR's

With a rangefinder you never get to see the "bokeh" until you develop the film. You always have to imagine "lesser" depth of field.

With an SLR (at least manual focus SLR's), you always see it, but unless you shoot wide open or use the depth-of-field preview, when you develop the film, you don't get the "bokeh" you saw. You often have to imagine "greater" depth of field.

 

[skahde]

With respect to real-photo-bokeh I found the image in the SLR-finder never to be very reliable, especially with faster lenses and brighter screens but anyway: It is still a lot better than not getting any impression at all!

 

[rakeshmravi]

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?

When I put my camera on on Tripod, for taking a landscape shot, I never shoot at 1.4.

If you are holding onto a lens that is made 20 years ago, then defnitly. Only very few Nikons can come to compete at extremes even with a mediocre RF. I don't see much difference over 2.8 with modern lenses. Do I street shoot at 1.4? Do I landscape at 1.4? Do I macro at 1.4? Def no. The lenses made by Nikon today are plenty sharp at 2.8. But they are frikn expensive.

The camera difference between RF and SLR is what plays for the 90% of your portfolio. This is true more often than not. The 10% (even less), is when you have the scenario such as you mentioned. In such cases, it is rarely that I use extremes.

The biggest benefit when I tried an RF is the sharpness I get when handlheld at sane apertures.

 

[narsuitus]

Since I only shoot 35mm, black and white, will I see a difference compared with the best Nikon lenses?

When I shot 35mm black & white, I saw no significant difference between rangefinders and SLRs or Leicas and Nikons. I was never completely satisfied with any of their black and white images.

It was not until I started shooting medium and large format black & white film that I saw a significant difference. The larger formats gave me the high-quality images that I needed.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Less of an issue with longer focal lengths, but particularly if one is shooting at focal lengths shorter than 50mm, the comparison is "unfair" as SLR lenses are retrofocus designs. It is much easier to build a sharp, distortionless, fully corrected 28mm rangefinder lens than an SLR lens, for example. So don't go comparing say a 28mm SLR Nikkor to a 28mm Leica M lens. To evaluate the potential superiority of the Leica lens, a better comparison would be to another 28mm rangefinder lens, like a current Zeiss/Cosina. There you will likely find the differences to be much smaller.

While that may be true in general terms, I actually prefer my 35mm R Summicron to my M one...
There are also several other cases where my retrofocus wides have little to envy their rangefinder equivalents (apart from size & weight!).

 

[blockend]

I can't see any discernible difference in quality between different makes of 50mm SLR lens. All are sharp enough and film choice and processing make a much greater impact on the final image. Wide and tele, yes, there are subtle differences, but enough to change the story the photograph tells? No. Even kit zooms can resolve enough information to make an attractive photograph.