Leica vs Nikon vintage lenses

[Nikon 2]

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare a vintage Leica lens to a vintage Nikon lens…?

 

[Nitroplait]

I am using vintage lenses from both manufactures. What do you want to know?

 

[guangong]

As a longtime user of both lenses I really haven’t paid much attention to any differences. The only observation that I can offer is that postwar Nikon produced lenses based upon Zeiss patents and designs, and that the general opinion was that Zeiss lenses were superior to those of Leitz. On the other hand, since both Nikon and Leitz produced various focal lengths and designs, some better than others. Leitz 50mm Summicron set the standard for that focal length. Nikon made a much more affordable ultra fast 50mm.
A better question may be which, Leitz or Nikon, offered the best for the buck?

 

[Nikon 2]

I am using vintage lenses from both manufactures. What do you want to know?

Does the Leica lenses show better edge definition or superior resolution that you can discern…?

 

[Nikon 2]

As a longtime user of both lenses I really haven’t paid much attention to any differences. The only observation that I can offer is that postwar Nikon produced lenses based upon Zeiss patents and designs, and that the general opinion was that Zeiss lenses were superior to those of Leitz. On the other hand, since both Nikon and Leitz produced various focal lengths and designs, some better than others. Leitz 50mm Summicron set the standard for that focal length. Nikon made a much more affordable ultra fast 50mm.
A better question may be which, Leitz or Nikon, offered the best for the buck?

That would definitely be Nikon…!

 

[BobD]

I have compared the two and, all else being equal, the Leica lenses definitely cost more than the Nikons.

 

[xkaes]

A similar comparison is the Leitz Vario-Elmar R 80-200mm f4.5. OOPS! I mean the Minolta MC Rokkor-X 80-200mm f4.5 -- because they are both the same lens, except Leitz replaced the SR mount with an R mount. When it first came out the Minolta zoom had a list price of $400. The Leica? The exact same lens, with German quality control? $1200.

I could go on with the numerous Minolta lenses that were sold as LEICA.

 

[Nikon 2]

I have compared the two and, all else being equal, the Leica lenses definitely cost more than the Nikons.

They sure do…!

 

[MarkS]

Any meaningful answer to this question must compare lenses of the same focal length and f/stop, from the same era.
Nikon RF lenses made 1950-65, Leica lenses 1930-"end of vintage era", Nikon F-mount lenses 1959-"end of vintage era", Leica R lenses 1964-2010?
Remember, many professionals who made their living and reputations with 35mm cameras used either brand- or both of them. Both companies made top-quality optics in the "vintage era"... still, some were better than others, and one brand may have had an advantage over the other in certain focal lengths.
Answering the question with any accuracy would require a large collection of "vintage" lenses and a great deal of rigorous (and tedious) testing.
Of course, a) if you want better image quality from either brand, use their "modern" lenses, and b) you are free to believe whatever you like about them.

 

[Radost]

The rangefinder wide lenses should me superior to SLR.
Less flange distance easier to design.

Dont know about the vintage once but if I could find a SLR 28mm lens as good as my elmerit I will probably shoot SLR a lot more.
The difference in quality is very noticeable between my Leica f2.8 and Minolta f2.8

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Vintage Leica could date from 1930's; while vintage Nikon could be early F lenses from 1958.

If you are going to compare based on resolution then the Nikon's will probably beat the Leitz lenses - Leitz did not rank resolution as a high priority in lens design.

 

[Nikon 2]

Any meaningful answer to this question must compare lenses of the same focal length and f/stop, from the same era.
Nikon RF lenses made 1950-65, Leica lenses 1930-"end of vintage era", Nikon F-mount lenses 1959-"end of vintage era", Leica R lenses 1964-2010?
Remember, many professionals who made their living and reputations with 35mm cameras used either brand- or both of them. Both companies made top-quality optics in the "vintage era"... still, some were better than others, and one brand may have had an advantage over the other in certain focal lengths.
Answering the question with any accuracy would require a large collection of "vintage" lenses and a great deal of rigorous (and tedious) testing.
Of course, a) if you want better image quality from either brand, use their "modern" lenses, and b) you are free to believe whatever you like about them.

Good answers…!

 

[Huss]

Does the Leica lenses show better edge definition or superior resolution that you can discern…?

I had the Nikon S 50 1.4 on my S2, and it was blurry/smeary on the edges at infinity compared to any Leica 50mm that I had. Not a good lens for infinity/landscape type shots, which is why I also picked up a Voigtlander 50 3.5 for that.

 

[miha]

I could go on with the numerous Minolta lenses that were sold as LEICA.

They were 7 of them in the R-line, only the Elmarit R 24 was produced till 2006, the rest were replaced by genuine Leica designs in the 80s/90s. A couple were also designed by Schneider. One was Sigma designed, and a couple by Kyocera. All in all the Leica R-line consisted of 70 different lenses.

 

[Moose22]

Huss, was that the original? Or the "modern" version?

I have the Y2K 50mm (which was upgraded, and is a fantastic lens from the half dozen rolls I've shot) and though haven't tested the edges it's tack friggen sharp in the middle based on some portraits I took. Sharper than the Leica 50mm collapsible, but I was shooting wide open and not evaluating the edges. I will say that the Nikkor originals are reputed to have soft corners and edges, and I expect they are softer than the Summicron.

 

[Huss]

Huss, was that the original? Or the "modern" version?

I have the Y2K 50mm (which was upgraded, and is a fantastic lens from the half dozen rolls I've shot) and though haven't tested the edges it's tack friggen sharp in the middle based on some portraits I took. Sharper than the Leica 50mm collapsible, but I was shooting wide open and not evaluating the edges. I will say that the Nikkor originals are reputed to have soft corners and edges, and I expect they are softer than the Summicron.

The original version.

 

[Moose22]

Thanks Huss. I haven't used that one, as I said. But I just did an internet search and refreshed what I'd read, everyone says it's not particularly sharp wide open. Edges veiled, strong falloff at f2, etc.

Kind of impresses me how nice the Y2K version is, actually, reading the reviews of the originals. Probably not germane, however, as we're comparing 50s lenses to 50s lenses and the mid 50s Summicrons aren't perfect, but pretty darned nice even shot wide open.

 

[4season]

I've just got some general impressions, nothing conducted with any scientific rigor. If my life depended on my being able to distinguish between Leica and Nikon glass solely by examining the results, I'd probably be a dead duck.

I read somewhere that it was really the collapsable 50 mm Summicron which brought Leitz recognition as a top-tier lens maker, whereas Zeiss was previously considered king of the hill. And mounted to an FF digital camera, that old Summicron still looks great, though color rendition of mine is off because the glass has yellowed. So for best results, I'd want to create a custom color profile to use with that lens. But my old silver 50/1.8 Canon also looks mighty good, and it isn't yellowed. Can't compare my Nikon S glass because I lack the appropriate adapter.

Biggest reason for my Leica M enthusiasm back in the day was because I liked the size and features seemed just right at the time. The limitations and high price also kept me focused on the 35/50 mm focal lengths, and I got to know them very well as a result. Harder to have such restraint with the Nikon F system!

 

[George Mann]

I had the Nikon S 50 1.4 on my S2, and it was blurry/smeary on the edges at infinity compared to any Leica 50mm that I had. Not a good lens for infinity/landscape type shots, which is why I also picked up a Voigtlander 50 3.5 for that.

Were you shooting the Nikkor at wide apertures?

 

[Huss]

Were you shooting the Nikkor at wide apertures?

Yes, it cleaned up quite a bit stopping down.

 

[Huss]

Thanks Huss. I haven't used that one, as I said. But I just did an internet search and refreshed what I'd read, everyone says it's not particularly sharp wide open. Edges veiled, strong falloff at f2, etc.

Kind of impresses me how nice the Y2K version is, actually, reading the reviews of the originals. Probably not germane, however, as we're comparing 50s lenses to 50s lenses and the mid 50s Summicrons aren't perfect, but pretty darned nice even shot wide open.

Yeah, Nikon really went all out with the Y2K version.

It's interesting because I wonder if they would do the same thing now and make it 'better'. Or make it an authentic copy of the original. Leica (and Light Lens Lab) is releasing authentic copies of their originals, most recently with the re-issued 35 1.4 Steel Rim.

 

[George Mann]

Yes, it cleaned up quite a bit stopping down.

Then my next question is why were you were shooting landscapes at such apertures? BTW, my Nikkor 50mm f2's are a bit soft in the corners wide open, but nothing approaching blurry or smeared. Of course an older f1.4 is bound to be worse.

 

[Nikon 2]

Were you shooting the Nikkor at wide apertures?

Voigtlander is making very good lenses at a more affordable price than Leica…!

 

[Nikon 2]

Then my next question is why were you were shooting landscapes at such apertures? BTW, my Nikkor 50mm f2's are a bit soft in the corners wide open, but nothing approaching blurry or smeared. Of course an older f1.4 is bound to be worse.

Are you using your Nikkor 50mm f/2 on a film or digital camera…?

 

[Nikon 2]

I say this because the Nikkor 50mm f/2 is one of the sharpest vintage lenses Nikon made…!