p.3 #1 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
flash wrote:
I was just referring to the consistency of design, size, weight and colour. Not claiming these were cine lenses. Stills lenses in a cine housing, if you like. If I was shooting a set of matched primes for video it would be the Panasonic 1.8’s, which are breathing corrected, mostly. The APO Summicrons are primarily stills lenses. Hopefully you can see what I meant.
Gordon
I do. I think they likely brought a lot of the things they learned from creating their cine lines to the designs for the SL and the design consistency is remarkable. And I'm sure they also get used regularly for video because every lens is a cine lens now. I was mostly trying to point out that they do have optics that are considered peak design in that field, and we should probably be happy the APO-Summicrons weren't designed to that level. They'd be twice the weight and cost as much as a base-model C-class from another German manufacturer.
p.3 #2 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
speedgraphic wrote:
They design lenses in a price-is-no-object market. That's fine, the lenses are pretty good. What I find more impressive is designing a great lens when you have actual cost constraints.
What you get with Leica is the ability to covet something precious. No-one will know you didn't take the image with an equivalent lens from Voigtlander....except that you'll probably tell them.
At my old job, the general counsel (a very nice man to be noted) was a big Leica nut. He knew I also shot Leica, but didn't know I also used other cameras. Often he'd ask to see my latest pics, and he go on about how the images had that Leica look etc.
Of course I never told him that about 75% of them were taken with lenses from Voigtlander, Zeiss, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta etc
p.3 #3 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Slightly sorta kinda digressing, just got an email from Leica Store SF about a new exhibition - Luis Cobelo : Zurumbatico.
The only other mfg I get stuff like this from is.... Lomography.
I guess only Leica and Lomography actually care about photos, not just gear.
(ok yeah that was a lame attempt at trolling but there is truth in the fact that they do seem to promote photography itself more than gear - especially Lomography. Of course you could argue what gear could Lomography possibly promote. D@mmit people you are making me argue with myself)
p.3 #4 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
flash wrote:
And 50% heavier ,
I do agree with you though. Those are my top three for *special* standard zooms. There are sharper (eg: Canon 24-105 2.8) but they’re mostly quite clinical.
The Canon is a bargain for what it is. I hardly use mine because of the weight but it’s also about the only reason I still have Canon in the safe.
Gordon
The Canon is very heavy. Canon is supposedly working on a version 2 that will be lighter.
That being said, I also own all 3 and still regularly use the Canon and the Hasselblad, the Leica not so much anymore.
I am very curious about the upcoming Canon RF 35 f/1.4L VCM. I wish it had come (a lot, meaning like years) sooner.
p.3 #5 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
flash wrote:
As an absolute Hasselblad fanboy, I have to admit that HB’s current glass isn’t as good as Leicas best, just. Hasselblad’s older XCD lenses were generally slightly better (except the new 90) then the newer V lenses, in the corners. It seems Hasselblad is slowly making two sets of lenses. The larger ones (25 and 90) are optically super impressive. The smaller ones (28, 38 and 55) are somewhat prioritising size over absolute optics.
Each of my SL APO Summicrons is a better lens than the equivalent HB offering. But if you add the sensor (which you kind of have to) the Hasselblad system out resolves the Leica system but not by as much as you might think.
Also Leica do have a set of S Summarits. Just epic. Unfortunately no camera that can take advantage of them. The S3 just doesn’t do enough, unfortunately.
I have a slightly different opinion about this. These smaller Hasselblad lenses are IMHO extremely important for the Hasselblad system and I sincerely wish that Leica also designed smaller (mirrorless) lenses. I own and love lenses like the zoom, the 80mm, the 25V, etc but the 38V is the one that I use pretty much all of the time. Probably other people might feel the same way about the 28P or the 45P. I only bought into the Hasselblad system after they released the 45P. After the Leica SL I did not want to buy into another system with only heavy lenses.
p.3 #6 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Desmolicious wrote:
Slightly sorta kinda digressing, just got an email from Leica Store SF about a new exhibition - Luis Cobelo : Zurumbatico.
The only other mfg I get stuff like this from is.... Lomography.
I guess only Leica and Lomography actually care about photos, not just gear.
(ok yeah that was a lame attempt at trolling but there is truth in the fact that they do seem to promote photography itself more than gear - especially Lomography. Of course you could argue what gear could Lomography possibly promote. D@mmit people you are making me argue with myself)
One could argue (with you, with someone else, etc) that some of the Leica reissue lenses are a lot like a Lomography product for someone’s wealthy uncle (assuming he is general counsel somewhere). The 28/5.6 in particular.
p.3 #7 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
SlowDriver wrote:
I have a slightly different opinion about this. These smaller Hasselblad lenses are IMHO extremely important for the Hasselblad system and I sincerely wish that Leica also designed smaller (mirrorless) lenses. I own and love lenses like the zoom, the 80mm, the 25V, etc but the 38V is the one that I use pretty much all of the time. Probably other people might feel the same way about the 28P or the 45P. I only bought into the Hasselblad system after they released the 45P. After the Leica SL I did not want to buy into another system with only heavy lenses. ...Show more →
Oh, I totally agree with you on this. The 55V is my favourite lens. Of any lens I currently own. I’m not a huge fan of the 45P (not really my focal length TBH) but adore the 28P when combined with the 55 and 90. The 38 is on my 907x 50C. Set up in square format. I love that combo but not as much on the X2D??
I’m just saying that from a pure optics POV the best Leica SL’s are generally slightly better than the equivalent XCD lenses but the system still favours the HB when you add the lenses and sensor together.
I’m also liking the non APO 50 Summicron SL. Don’t know if I have an especially good copy but it’s a little ripper. So are the Sigma *i* primes. I have the 20, 24, 50 and 90 (basically a travel version of my APO’s). Love the IQ and aperture dials. But I find I’m using the 20 with the Leica 50 (non APO) and Panasonic 100mm macro a lot as a light kit.
I picked up the SIgma 24-70II, 70-200 2.8 and 60-600 this week (L mount) as well as the staggeringly good Fujifilm GF500mm. Been less than a day but already the 60-600 thumps my copy (I suspect is below average) of the 150-600. Impressed with the other two as well. Not sure why the hood has to hide a third of the zoom ring on the 70-200 though. Usable but a weird design decision. Both seem VEY sharp but still early days. Nice fast AF though.
p.3 #9 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
_jim_ wrote:
One could argue (with you, with someone else, etc) that some of the Leica reissue lenses are a lot like a Lomography product for someone’s wealthy uncle (assuming he is general counsel somewhere). The 28/5.6 in particular.
I actually use a Lomography petzval lens and it is really good at doing the petzval thing.
p.3 #10 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Desmolicious wrote:
At my old job, the general counsel (a very nice man to be noted) was a big Leica nut. He knew I also shot Leica, but didn't know I also used other cameras. Often he'd ask to see my latest pics, and he go on about how the images had that Leica look etc.
Of course I never told him that about 75% of them were taken with lenses from Voigtlander, Zeiss, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta etc
The only people I have ever heard be arrogant about Leica lenses are people that only shoot something other than Leica-
I don’t really understand but it is what it is- Most Leica shooters use tons of other gear and love it- and are usually really amped to talk about all of it-
p.3 #11 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Leica still cannot be beaten when it comes to figuring out how to manufacture optics so inefficiently that costs remain significantly higher than the competition.
Now that I have told you what you wanted to hear you have to make a choice on how you spend your money and what is worth it to you. They build robust optics to very high tolerances that they offer support and parts for long periods of time. It may be true that the competition has caught up decades later to certain optical designs. However, they released many class leading optics decades before the competition: Summicron/Summilux 50 and many other designs. So, there was a long period of time on many lenses that had no equivalent to the Leica design. You also may not need the level of correction offered by some of these optics. If you are taking a portrait or shoot people, then whatever looks good to you is good enough.
When you buy Leica you buy their opinion on optical compromises. Leica generally strives for a neutral bokeh. Whether you like that or not is a personal choice. They also allow a good amount of curvature especially in the older designs for M/R lenses. The SL lenses are another matter. Those are huge, but extremely well corrected. You can argue they are at the top of optical corrections compared to anybody.
p.3 #12 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Leica lenses are some of the worlds best. There are excellent lenses from many makers. For me, I chose the Leica glass I have for the same reasons I chose Cosina Voigtländer and Zeiss Otus ( but I repeat myself ) Hasselblad, Rollei, Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Fujinon, Mamiya lenses - for the resolution, rendering and bokeh aji.
Of course, one has to pair the lens with a sensor that is also excellent, and have a process that can extract the top performance from such a lens + sensor combo.
I never bought a lens because it was expensive, but I've bought expensive lenses that have few or no peers in resolution, rendering and bokeh.
As to what Leica does better these days: The Summilux-M 90mm f/1.5 is resolving beyond belief with amazing bokeh. The APO-Summicron-M 50 f/2 is as yet unsurpassed for size and resolution, as close as the CV Apo-Lanthar 50 f/2 is. The Summilux-M 50 f/1.4 has excellent sharpness and a unique rendering due to it's intentional aberrations and sublime bokeh. The APO-Telyt-M 135mm f/3.4 is amazing for landscape and portraiture. For the most part the M lenses are half or less the volume of their competitors and are often optically superior as well. The SL zooms are unchallenged for L mount zooms and many of the SL primes are also unequalled. I'm sure there are other excellent Leica lenses I haven't touched upon.
If you're after making photographs that have a hyperreal resolution with pleasing renderings, natural colors and beautiful bokeh then consider investigating and investing in some of the better lenses from Leica or some of the other makers mentioned. And you'll need a good high resolution, high dynamic range, high color fidelity sensor, along with ( probably ) an excellent tripod. Don't forget a high quality wide gamut HDR 4K monitor and calibration.
I arrived at my information about various lenses through study and application of what I studied. As is the case with many of these pursuits, be it photography or audio recording, or cooking, discernment is a key feature of choosing ones way along the path to obtaining a desired result. It's often hard to recommend to others a piece of gear as reasons for it's use are different from person to person, and perceptions vary from individual to individual. If these distinctions amongst lenses don't appear or appeal to a user, or don't justify the cost, it's understandable to look elsewhere. To paraphrase Thorsten Overgaard: "If you don't see a difference with Leica, congratulations you saved yourself a lot of money."
p.3 #13 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
I decided to look up some of this data and BS test myself as well as add some actual numbers behind it.
The APO Summicron-M 50 was released in 2012. The Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 50 was released in 2019 for Sony E mount. That's 7 years later. It was released for M mount a year later in 2020 or 8 years later. 8 years of photographs is a long time that it remained without equal. The aberration correction between these lenses is very similar. However, how they behave in falloff and out of focus is not. Which one is the best choice for you will depend.
The Summilux-M 50 is interesting, both in pre-asph form and asph form. The pre-asph (II) had a long reign from 1962-2004. This lens did not have any serious competition for decades. At least not at f/1.4. Leica sacrificed to optimize performance wide open. Other fast 50's would do better in the corners once stopped down, but nothing much performed close to it at f/1.4. If you wanted better across the frame performance, then Leica had the Summicron, which also for decades had little to no competition when it came to across the frame performance. The summilux was also special when it came to coma correction something that plagues fast 50s even today. My understanding is there wasn't really another lens that was able to do better than the Summilux until the Voigtlander Nokton f/1.5. I see the earliest date this lens being available for Leica Screw Mount is 1999. There is also a version II that looks to be available from 2020.
Now my knowledge on the Nokton f/1.5 is lacking so don't hold me to this, but it seems that it may have bested the pre-asph, but it was not at the same level as the Summilux-M ASPH released in 2004. Also, from what I have seen even version II has pretty nasty coma wide open at f/1.4 that was much better corrected on both the pre-asph and asph Summiluxes. Even then the Summilux (II) was available since 1962 and without peer for many decades. There wasn't much available as well corrected as the ASPH Summilux until the Otus 55 bested it in 2013. However, that's 9 years after the first release of the ASPH Summilux.
I am sure you can pick other Leica lenses to put in this category. My understanding is the APO Summicron 90 is also extremely well corrected and also without equal when released for who knows how long.
p.3 #15 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Lee Saxon wrote:
To be fair I think we ought to let Nikon count the 28/1.4E even though it's not mirrorless, because the FTZ adapter works very very well.
On the other hand I'll say that nothing that can top the 28/2.8 Elmarit-R II for me. Such beautiful color saturation.
A reason that I have not spent money on expensive or fast-aperture M-mount lenses, and have kept using my Nikon F-mount cameras, is because the Nikkor AF-S 28/1.4E is so very good. This lens rules the night, in a way that the AF-S 35/1.4G never could…
Even so, I have maintained a Saved Search, on the “evil bay,” for the Elmarit-R 28/2.8 II E55. Several have tempted me, very much, during the past few years…
p.3 #16 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
BastianK wrote:
Marketing and sustaining their brand image.
And heritage, I forgot about heritage.
Only a strong brand allows you to overcharge customers to that degree.
Hi Bastian. I've always respected your work, as you probably know already, and being a Leica user but also having Nikon and Fujifilm gear, will try to to find an answer by ordering my fixed lenses from most to least appreciated:
if I had to choose one lens for the rest of my life, it would be the 50mm summilux hands down. but looking at the bottom of the list I realize how small the differences are in general and how great the overall quality of all the gear I use is.
P.S: of course Leica is way overpriced, even if I sometimes prefer its general rendering over other brands.
p.3 #17 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
ottokbre wrote:
"The camera is nice but it's just a box. You buy Leica for the lenses!"
That's my opinion too.
And it's not just about Leica. For me, any photo system starts with the lenses. In terms of the number and quality of artistic lenses and compatibility with other brands, the M system is the clear leader.
Much has been said here about Hasselblad – it was an excellent company with high-quality lenses, but today it's more like a travel camera for wealthy buyers than a tool for serious work. The 907x and X2D (1 and 2) remain excellent cameras, but the optics are no longer top-notch. And personally, I'm not satisfied with just one lens in a focal length with a single character. I'm used to having five to seven only 50mm lenses to suit every taste and size (and I know many who own dozens of 50mm lenses).
p.3 #18 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
Long thread to talk about lenses. No pictures, no comparisons.
Why? Because people have shot good pictures with anything for a very long time. It was hard to tell the difference then.
Nowadays, it is impossible on the screen or on print, especially after any normal post-processing.
But people continue to be obsessed by gear, looking at 60 mpix at 100% magnification.
P.S: last time I did a comparison, 1 or 2 months ago, I could hardly see the difference between a 14-140 Pana lens or a cheap 12-32 on a 16 to 20 mpix sensor vs a Summicron M v2 on a M11 when printed in A2 format. In the corners...
p.3 #19 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
RustyBug wrote:
IQ
Size
$$$
Pick two. Leica costs more, but I think they have the IQ / Size thing down in a way that is better than most. Others will dissent.
In this type of thread RustyBug's point often gets overlooked. The Leica M lenses tend to be small to minimize viewfinder blockage, so because of their IQ tend to be expensive (IQ & Size choice). Third party M lenses with competitive image quality at a lower price point tend to be larger with more viewfinder blockage (IQ & $$$ choice).
The same tends to hold in the SL lenses, where viewfinder blockage is no longer an issue, Leica is able to preserve or improve on M lens image quality while reducing price (IQ & $$$ choice). While the SL primes are certainly expensive, even with the addition of autofocus, they are priced lower than their M counterparts. That price reduction comes at the cost of size and weight.
While the APO Summicron-SL f2.0 lenses are manageable, the 50 Summilux-SL is in a different catagory. I think Leica's target customer base is relatively price insensitive, but is not going to accept lens weight above a certain point. Hence the discontinuation of the current 50 Summilux-SL in favor of a smaller and lighter replacement.(IQ & Size). Don't be suprised at the price if it is a Leica produced lens.
I think this (weight sensitivity) is why there are no Noctilux lenses in the SL mount. Nikon made the 58mm f0.95 in Z-Mount to demonstrate its optical prowess. It costs $8,646.95 and is manual focus only in order to keep the weight at 4.4 pounds. Photographylife says "it is the best full frame lens from an optical standpoint available today", but few are buying them. Imagine what a Leica 50 Noctilux-SL would be like.
I am always amazed at the equipment options we have today. Whatever segment of photography we enjoy there are a variety of excellent products available to help us persue it. "You pays your money and makes your choice." The choosing can be both fun and frustrating.
p.3 #20 · Optics: What does Leica do better these days?
RustyBug wrote:
IQ
Size
$$$
Pick two. Leica costs more, but I think they have the IQ / Size thing down in a way that is better than most. Others will dissent.
Agree, right on target.
One other point - I think there has been a sea change in lens design in the past 5-10 years. In older times, especially when calcs were more analog than digital, Leica's full commitment to optical quality led to largely superior designs, as well as better form factor also. Important in those times (and maybe still) was the depth of their work, size of their staff, and detail development of the finer points in their optics. Recently, its clear this has not recently translated well to their control of manufacturing quality, but the designs were (and still are) a step up from anyone else.
These days, lens design seems to drop out of computers at almost anyone's calling, and the level of quality is much improved throughout the industry - thus allowing for $500 Chinese lenses practically as good as the Leicas (or at least the older ones). Still think Leica has a small heads up, but this varies by lens, how recently it was designed, and the magic consistency that Leica adds to their product line.
However, there are many cases where the new kids are practically as good, for a lot less (cheap labor, probably newer manuf techniques too). A comparison of three 35mm lenses - the Leica 'cron, CV Color Skopar 2.5, and the LLL 1.4 was totally befuddling, as the CV did really really well. Figured the light was odd, and quickly put the test in the "do not look" file. While quite happy with the LLL 35mm, nothing is replacing the 50mm 'cron, which is magic.
