damonnomonon wrote:
Although I have a Lieca M6, I’ve never actually owned a Leica lens. I have had a whole lot of LLL and Voightlander with the idea that they are nearly as good at a fraction of the price and they are new so that also avoids some issues. Do you think I would actually notice the quality of a Leica Lens (I could have probably afford a basic summicron) or would it just be a disappointment because they don’t perform any better than anything I already have? In other words, is it true that the more and more third party lenses that are coming out means there less and less of the need to buy a Leica?...Show more →
Depends ... if you want a 135/3.4 APO for M mount ... then, yup, you need to buy a Leica lens. If you want a 50/3.5 APO close focus, then you need to buy a Voigtlander. If you want a pocket rocket 40 ... there's the Leica Summicron-C and the Voigtlander 40/1.4.
While folks will speak to the size difference that Leica brings to the table, that is but ONE consideration. If you want the approach to rendering of a Mandler style lens or a Karbe or a Zeiss style rendering that's another consideration. If you want a level of aberration correction / vignetting for a given aperture, that's another level of consideration.
The point is that with lenses ... it's almost like wine or craft beer. The nuance is in the combinations of considerations that are employed / deployed in the optical design choices. From the use of ASPH elements to APD elements you can get different renderings, or things like focus shift, etc. The tolerance for different aberrations, likewise.
That said ... the "nearly as good" needs to be put in context "good at what" (or sometimes it is an issue of "not good at what"). A blanket statement that is espoused as a universal truism is rarely actually true. The devil is in the details. What do you "already have" vs. what might you be considering from a Leica offering standpoint. That, and what do you want from your lens?
I think there's a few different questions / answers to be derived before your broad / blanket question can be prudently answered. Do I think that there's a difference that can be realized in different Leica optics vs. the host of other considerations. I do, depending on what your goals might be. But, I would not consider a blanket statement for / against the value proposition vs. performance / rendering proposition, sage. I think the answer deserves to be much more considerate than that.
damonnomonon wrote:
Probably a 50mm. Is the 11891 a good one?
The classic 11891 Summilux is an incredible lens, that focuses down to the 0.7m rangefinder limit, which should be plenty for your needs. The newer version carries over the same optical design and adds close-focusing down to 0.45m (for digital bodies via Live View), but honestly, you are more than covered with the 11891, especially given today's used prices.
I second the 11891 Summilux. I regret selling mine, and if I would "only have one Leica lens", I would likely go back to it. Either that or the 35 Summilux FLE.
gavinsan wrote:
I second the 11891 Summilux. I regret selling mine, and if I would "only have one Leica lens", I would likely go back to it. Either that or the 35 Summilux FLE.
I actually just noticed the Thypoch Simera 50mm f1.4 is a good performer. Or is that more of a copy of a more modern Summilux?
I believe that yes, the Thypoch is very close to the Lux ASPH, which means it's not quite the same as the pre-ASPH. I believe the major visual difference will primarily be in rendering character.
