Leica M2 vs M4 vs M6 Any Real Difference in Optical Results?

[gary mulder]

In an attempt to change this thread in the direction of comparing what a lens can contribute to the artistic value of the photo.

LEICA 90mm f/2
SUMMICRON-M (1980-1998)

The second example is not a Leica lens but a Planar 80mm. This is to make the difference between image character a bit clearer. This photo would have less expressiveness with a Leica lens because the blur is much diffuse/contrast-rich outside the field of focus with the summicron.

 

[Hassasin]

In an attempt to change this thread in the direction of comparing what a lens can contribute to the artistic value of the photo.

LEICA 90mm f/2
SUMMICRON-M (1980-1998)

The second example is not a Leica lens but a Planar 80mm. This is to make the difference between image character a bit clearer. This photo would have less expressiveness with a Leica lens because the blur is much diffuse/contrast-rich outside the field of focus with the summicron.

To each their own. I don't know what you're seeing. Two entirely different focal lengths, two totally different images, one stand still, the other with dynamics of a moving subject, each with entirely tonal range.

That aside from what this thread is about.

 

[gary mulder]

Two entirely different focal lengths,

Yes of course 90mm is a totally different focal length than 80mm. LOL

 

[gary mulder]

That aside from what this thread is about.

Exclusive Leica? It is not allowed to put another brand of lens on an M-Leica?

 

[Hassasin]

Exclusive Leica? It is not allowed to put another brand of lens on an M-Leica?

No no, I meant OP asked about same lens on different body, or to be exact will different Leica body affect image quality.

 

[gary mulder]

each with entirely tonal range.

Yes, that's the point I wanted to make. That has something to do with different MTF curves.

 

[skahde]

look and "character"? explain, do you have A/B comparism of some Noctilux and a "hommage"lens

No Nocti here. There have been to many interesting alternatives to explore this instead of this comparably expensive option. And I have seen too many fellow-photographers sell their Noctis after the first interest has faded.

 

[chuckroast]

A mute point.

Its like clothes so finely spun that the human eye cannot see them - hence the Emperor is naked.

(*You mean a "moot" point - one that is irrelevant. A "mute" point would be one that is silent. Law students do not attend Mute Court, and your TV controller does not have a Moot button

It is not the case that "the human eye cannot see them". It is the case that the human eye often cannot see them as rendered on LCD screens we're using.

These monitors are relatively low fidelity devices, are not well calibrated one with another, are transmissive rather than reflective like an actual photograph, and are the mercy of the video cards themselves for reproductive accuracy. Moreover, going from the HD curve of film/paper to the curve of the monitor is another bowl of worms. Then there is the mapping of dynamic range to consider ... ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

But, as I noted in my prior response, to isolate these subtle lens effects, you have to remove all other variables from the experiment: Camera. subject, lighting, processing, printing, and viewing must all be identical so that any difference seen would be attributable only to the lenses under consideration.

All that said, it's hardly an "invisible" difference, at least in all cases. If I aim an uncoated Elmar at a specular light source and compare the outcome to that of a modern Summicron in the same setting, the differences aren't even all that subtle, they're striking. If I were to do such a comparison (unlikely), the difference is enough that even these monitors would show it. There is a guy over on RFF that has a considerable body of work shot in Holland. He's using legacy Leica optics and the much lower contrast is immediately apparent.

 

[chuckroast]

In an attempt to change this thread in the direction of comparing what a lens can contribute to the artistic value of the photo.

LEICA 90mm f/2
SUMMICRON-M (1980-1998)

The second example is not a Leica lens but a Planar 80mm. This is to make the difference between image character a bit clearer. This photo would have less expressiveness with a Leica lens because the blur is much diffuse/contrast-rich outside the field of focus with the summicron.

That's really interesting. Thanks for posting these.

I have a 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M that looks like neither of the above

I also have an 80mm f/2.8 Planar in Hasselblad mount that certainly has its own look, and it's sister lens, the 100mm f/3.5 Planar has yet again its own look.

As someone pointed out upthread, some of this is likely attributable to different lens MTF curves which are a fundamental expression of the lens' design. To that, I would add the evolution of lens coatings over that past hundred years or so. Even within the same family/lens design, Nikon and Leica (and probably all the other major brands) have updated and improved the coating tech.

It's also worth noting the role of the aperture mechanism in all this. The number of blades will affect the shape of the bokeh at wider apertures. But, I also found out that the coating on blades matters a whole bunch. I had a collapsible 50mm f/2 Summicron in LTM that - even after CLA/cleaning - would create really weird reflection patterns in the face of specular highlights. Rather than looking like normal "flare", the shape of the reflection was essentially identical to the shape of the aperture blades themselves. I've never had a lens before- or since do that.