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

gary mulder · Oct 29, 2025

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 · Oct 29, 2025

gary mulder said:
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 · Oct 29, 2025

Hassasin said:
Two entirely different focal lengths,

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

gary mulder · Oct 29, 2025

Hassasin said:
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 · Oct 29, 2025

gary mulder said:
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 · Oct 29, 2025

Hassasin said:
each with entirely tonal range.

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

skahde · Oct 29, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
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 · Oct 29, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
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 · Oct 29, 2025

gary mulder said:
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.

snusmumriken · Oct 29, 2025

chuckroast said:
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.

If you mean Erik van Straten, I think he illustrates an idiosyncratic way of printing and then digitising his prints (low contrast and very dark), rather than a character inherent in his vintage lenses. If you copy one of his RFF posts and tweak it, you can make it look reasonably modern .

RezaLoghme · Oct 29, 2025

chuckroast said:
(*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.

So does that mean that the hardcore, high-end photographers who spend 1000s on a APO lens (for example) then largely print their photos on paper, to avoid the lo-fi of screens?

GregY · Oct 29, 2025

snusmumriken said:
If you mean Erik van Straten, I think he illustrates an idiosyncratic way of printing and then digitising his prints (low contrast and very dark), rather than a character inherent in his vintage lenses. If you copy one of his RFF posts and tweak it, you can make it look reasonably modern .

Agreed. From Erik's photos it seems the sun never shines in NL.
He does also use modern lenses like the V CS 50mm 2.5 and the LLL 8E 35mm

gary mulder · Oct 29, 2025

snusmumriken said:
If you mean Erik van Straten, I think he illustrates an idiosyncratic way of printing and then digitising his prints (low contrast and very dark), rather than a character inherent in his vintage lenses. If you copy one of his RFF posts and tweak it, you can make it look reasonably modern .

Do you mean that the character of Erik van Straten work encompasses more than just the character of the lenses he uses. It seems like a good choice to use the tools that support what you want to achieve.

chuckroast · Oct 29, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
So does that mean that the hardcore, high-end photographers who spend 1000s on a APO lens (for example) then largely print their photos on paper, to avoid the lo-fi of screens?

I think anyone who prints on paper is probably trying to overcome the look and limitations of a display. Whether you need an APO lens to do this is questionable.

RezaLoghme · Oct 29, 2025

I thought I once read that 99(?) % of all photos end up digital.

snusmumriken · Oct 29, 2025

gary mulder said:
Do you mean that the character of Erik van Straten work encompasses more than just the character of the lenses he uses. It seems like a good choice to use the tools that support what you want to achieve.

Arguably, yes; though I think I could produce a similar ‘look’ using more recent lenses. He does make some great captures, by the way, and lots of them. I wish he’d print them a bit brighter, but that’s his call.

RezaLoghme · Oct 29, 2025

I have seen that some 35mm lenses for M Leicas command astonishing prices, compared to my modest plain jaine Summarit from 1990s. How would these differ?

chuckroast · Oct 29, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
I have seen that some 35mm lenses for M Leicas command astonishing prices, compared to my modest plain jaine Summarit from 1990s. How would these differ?

I've not owned one but I've read a fair bit. Assuming the Summarit is in good condition, it has the reputation of being razor sharp. It also is less likely to have the same bokeh "character" as the equivalent Summicron. There are those who find the Summarit build quality inferior to the Summicrons, but realistically, it's Leica.

I would not hesitate to buy either.

RezaLoghme · Oct 30, 2025

Just interested to know why rational thinking people then are willing to spend 2x or 3x if the difference is marginal and/or can only be "felt" but not "seen".

Arthurwg · Oct 30, 2025

chuckroast said:
I think anyone who prints on paper is probably trying to overcome the look and limitations of a display. Whether you need an APO lens to do this is questionable.

I do think most of the "character" that I get in my pictures comes from the darkroom. The one exception might be the Holga.

gary mulder · Oct 30, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
I thought I once read that 99(?) % of all photos end up digital.

Although I dedicate myself with heart and soul to prints on paper, we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of the photos we "consume" are digital on a screen. We can also conclude that a modern high-resolution screen easily leaves a photo printed in a newspaper behind. I am also not at all convinced that an image on an HR screen is so inferior. As some here would have us believe. I must also be very mistaken if a light-emitting screen does not have a much greater light intensity range than reflective paper. In addition, the pixel density of the current LED screens is close to that of an inkjet print. I think even though I love paper, it is a myth that a screen is inferior to print.

RezaLoghme · Oct 30, 2025

Right now we are sitting in front of our screens, admiring each others Flickr streams, waxing lyrically about the microcontrast glow of APO lenses.

RezaLoghme · Oct 30, 2025

gary mulder said:
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.

I prefer the 2nd pic. Without you having given the details I would have never guessed that the first one was taken with a 90mm lens.

What is "rendering" ?

gary mulder · Oct 30, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
What is "rendering" ?

Rendering is the way in which the raw data is converted into an image. For example, how the lens converts the light that falls on it into a projected image on the film. But also how the film and developer convert that light image that falls on it into a negative or slide. But also how the bits and bytes are displayed as a photo by the screen. In all these examples, there is no single way to do that. That is why there is talk of character.

gary mulder · Oct 30, 2025

RezaLoghme said:
I prefer the 2nd pic. Without you having given the details I would have never guessed that the first one was taken with a 90mm lens.

Of course, you don't have to choose. Because you do, I always find it very interesting to know why. By the way, there is more than 20 years between the making of those two pictures. My preference for optics has also become a lot more pronounced in that time. The copyright date is the date on which I scanned the print for my digital archive.

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency