p.8 #1 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Yeah its what did it for me. I realized I can shoot almost anything I want with a 28 and a 50. I tried just the 35 thing for a while but it was too in between for me. 28 is just... ahhhh. I plan on getting a 135/2L (add that to the list above) or a 100/2 for a tele on the Canon, and then I'll have a 2 camera, 3 lens kit that will let me do anything I ever wanted to do...
Then again, I'm one of those people that would rather miss a shot because I don't have a zoom. So what, I missed a shot? Have a fixed focal length makes me take shots that I normally wouldn't take otherwise. And its a lot easier on the back
p.8 #2 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
There are quite a few speculative claims in your post but the above I can address to some degree from personal experience. Every time I've been suckered in to purchasing a Nikon or Canon lens because of internet claims that it's "as good as a Leica" I've been disappointed. There may be certain aspects of the (N, C) lens that rival a comparable Leica lens but the total package isn't there. It might be image detail, color quality, distortion, flare, bokeh, handling... something or several somethings are missing.
Yeah. I'll take your opinion with a healthy grain of salt. I've never seen you acknowledge the quality of ANY lens other than a Leica... You obviously think the Leica look IS 'the total package', but I can assure you, your subjective opinion is not shared by everyone.
I've tried plenty of Leica lenses, all of them reputed by people like yourself to be among the best available (2x Summicron 35, 2x Summicron 50, 1x Elmarit Makro 60 and 1x Elmarit 90), and I don't believe any of them were. They were all good, solid, all round lenses, and I believe that Leica's great strength is its consistency, but none of them was outstanding. Indeed, some of them were deeply flawed, even if they were still nice lenses. My first Summicron 35 is the only lens I regret selling - it was a lovely lens, sharp and elegant in its drawing style, but its corner performance was well behind my lowly Canon 24-105 until at least f8, as was the second copy (both tried on several adapters of different thicknesses).
Leica brand worshipping is just not supported by the evidence I myself (and some of the others who went into the church to have a look around) gathered. They are nice lenses and they'll never let you down, but they're not always the best available.
p.8 #4 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Brainiac is correct. While the Leica M8 is a fun camera, the more modern dSLRs are superior. I have had the D300, D3, 5d and 5d2. All are superior to the M8, unfortunately. Moreover, the 5d2 blows them all out of the water... --rob
p.8 #6 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Justin-- Telyt has rated well the 180 AIS in prior discussions... he has his bias, but seems to know a thing or two as well.
I'm well aware of his bias. That's why I said I'd take his opinion with a grain of salt. Critiquing the quality of Leica lenses with him is like arguing the existence of God with the Pope. Sorry, not interested in being talked down to and banging my head against a brick wall.
p.8 #7 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
ISO1600 wrote:
man i've got a $17 PnS that won't let me down.
Yeah, but it let's me down. And didn't you mean to type "$17 POS"? The compositions are great, but that has nada to do with the camera.
Jan 14, 2009 at 03:41 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #8 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
kidtexas wrote:
M8 notwithstanding, some people would rather shoot with an RF than a SLR, digital or not...
...And if that choice of equipment inspires you, then who's to say its wrong? I shoot way more with an RF than with an SLR, because I feel more comfortable with it and carry it around more.
+10. What makes you shoot happy is better than what doesn't, as long as it's not male jewellery. But make sure you have done your homework properly, and really compared usage and results, rather than believing someone who says "Canon/Nikon/Leica is the only worthy marque, bar none, period".
Jan 14, 2009 at 05:10 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #9 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
I have owned and used in anger the Leica R 28 f2.8 and the R 180 f2, supposedly two of the best. I sold both lenses because I preferred other lenses for optical reasons. My Contax 28 f2.8 is better over most of the frame at smaller apertures than the R 28, and my Canon 200 f1.8 produced much more convincing results than the 180 f2. Both of those Leica lenses were superb lenses and it was a privilege to use them, but fans of Leica talk as if all Leica lenses are intrinsically superior to any other brand. That's not my experience. They are very good though, and the M8 doesn't get the best out of newer M lenses, whether they be from Leica, Zeiss, or Cosina.
p.8 #10 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
I have owned and used in anger the Leica R 28 f2.8 and the R 180 f2, supposedly two of the best. I sold both lenses because I preferred other lenses for optical reasons. My Contax 28 f2.8 is better over most of the frame at smaller apertures than the R 28, and my Canon 200 f1.8 produced much more convincing results than the 180 f2. Both of those Leica lenses were superb lenses and it was a privilege to use them, but fans of Leica talk as if all Leica lenses are intrinsically superior to any other brand. That's not my experience. They are very good though, and the M8 doesn't get the best out of newer M lenses, whether they be from Leica, Zeiss, or Cosina....Show more →
I've heard the R180/2 is a good lens but never having shot an R, I wouldn't know. The 28/2.8 I don't think is any thing legendary. Maybe in SLR land, but this wides are rangefinders really shine. I know where comparing MTFs can get you, but if you want to see an interesting comparison, look at the R 28/2.8 data compared to the M 28/2.
As far as I'm concerned, Leica's designs from 20 years ago are decent, but like any other lens line up. On the other hand, their lenses from the last, say 10 years are pretty well designed. The M28/2.8 might seem like just a 'good' lens until you see just how small it is, etc.
Oh, one last huge benefit to the 'horrible' rangefinder viewing system. You can use whatever filters you want on the lens without messing up your view. I use this to great advantage whenever I shoot IR or with a deep red filter. Less important in digital, sure, but...
p.8 #12 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Justin D wrote:
I've tried plenty of Leica lenses, all of them reputed by people like yourself to be among the best available (2x Summicron 35, 2x Summicron 50, 1x Elmarit Makro 60 and 1x Elmarit 90), and I don't believe any of them were. They were all good, solid, all round lenses, and I believe that Leica's great strength is its consistency, but none of them was outstanding..
You might want to try some of the Leica R lenses that were designed less than 20-30 years ago to make a fair comparison to the more modern offerings from Canon, Nikon or Zeiss. A hint is the modern lenses usually are APO, ASPH or both.
p.8 #13 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
brainiac wrote:
I have owned and used in anger the Leica R 28 f2.8 and the R 180 f2, supposedly two of the best. I sold both lenses because I preferred other lenses for optical reasons. My Contax 28 f2.8 is better over most of the frame at smaller apertures than the R 28,
Could you elaborate on the R28? The R28, like the D21, can get a bad rap due to adapter accuracy. I had to tune my adapter to get corners as sharp as the center @ wide open, f/2.8. Optimum sharpness at f/4. The Contax 28 F2.8, I had never really caught up in the corners and did indeed need f/8 and smaller to compete. That's 2 to 3 stops advantage.
kidtexas wrote:
The 28/2.8 I don't think is any thing legendary. Maybe in SLR land, but this wides are rangefinders really shine. I know where comparing MTFs can get you, but if you want to see an interesting comparison, look at the R 28/2.8 data compared to the M 28/2.
As far as I'm concerned, Leica's designs from 20 years ago are decent, but like any other lens line up. On the other hand, their lenses from the last, say 10 years are pretty well designed.
Late M lenses are the best, I agree completely. What is the take away from your MTF comparision, above?
I have a late pre-asph M 28/2.8 Elmarit that I have a hard time believing is practical to upgrade to the f/2 Sumicron version for the extra stop, in consideration of the higher ISO M8 quality.
p.8 #14 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Oh, it was directed at Brainiac with respect to the R 28/2.8. While it might be a nice lens, Leica makes at least 2 or 3 better 28's (M 28 cron, M 28/2.8 ASPH, M 28/2.8 pre-Asph...). The point being that I think a lot of people say, "What's with all these Leica people tooting the horn of Leica lenses? I've tried a couple of wides/normals and they aren't anything great." What they don't say is that they are trying 20-30 year old designs on the R system, not the current design M lenses, which really are different. In particular, look at the MTF in the corners on the R28 and M28.
Wides on RF really are a different world from SLRs. A CV 15/4.5 is a pretty good performing lens and is ABSOLUTELY TINY. I used to have a 17-40/4L for Canon and got rid of it when I set it next to the CV 15. That thing is maybe what, and inch tall? An absolute delight and not too expensive either.
I've actually heard the M 28/2.8 pre Asph is, from what I read, better in most respects than the 28/2.8 Asph, with the exception of size. If you're happy with it, keep it. I got the cron because I wanted f/2 for my main lens. The 28/2's big downfall is vignetting, which doesn't seem to make it into the spec sheet, but is there. It's not something that bothers me at all though, so didn't factor in my decision, but it might really bug others.
To get back to the photos, I always liked this shot (taken with the CV 15 right after I got it on Kodachrome...):
Jan 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM
brainiac Offline [X]
p.8 #15 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
My point was that Leica's R lenses, having been compared like for like with other makers lenses with adaptors on Canon's bodies, don't necessarily outperform them as we are all expected to believe they will.
When it comes to the M lenses, unfortunately nobody knows how good they would be with a 5D2 sensor behind them because they aren't adaptable, generally, to EOS mount. The M8.2 certainly isn't going to show us how good they are. It is not very high resolution, by today's standards, and it doesn't go to the corner. Whether Leica will ever build a sensor which can get the best out of wide angle M lenses, I don't know, but it isn't here yet. The M lenses may be great, but in the foreseeable future, there is no way of realising their supposed superiority over Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon glass. The argument that M lenses justify expenditure on the M system is practically fallacious, because that system can not show you the supposed advantages of those lenses (except perhaps with 12 iso film). One day perhaps it might, but the jury is out on that question.
p.8 #16 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
(I'm just messing with you by the way)
That's funny, because I was comparing two Canon lenses that I own on an SLR that I own and the equivalent Leica lenses (in aperture + focal length, NOT price) that I own on a RF that I own. Both shot with the same films. I prefer the Leica lenses. In my mind, some of the weakness of the two Canon lenses wide open are readily apparent even with shaky + grainy 400 B&W Tri-X shots. There's nothing supposed there. I can only imagine what they look like on a 24 mp digital sensor
In the big picture, all this lens talk started because someone asked which are these supposedly superior Leica lenses. I threw up 2 suggestions that in my mind are clearly better than the Canon equivalents. That's not to say that Canon, Nikon, and everyone else don't have their great lenses, they absolutely do. And just because Leica (or Canon or anyone else) makes a great couple of lenses doesn't mean that all of their lenses in the same line are fantastic, or that lenses that they make in other mounts are fantastic either.
p.8 #17 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
Note a lot of this comes down to taste. Personally, there's very few Leica lenses that I like the results from, not because they're technically inferior but rather because the drawing styles Leica designs for are not the ones I like. I generally dislike an overly smooth transition to OoF in particular, preferring the Zeiss '3D' look with its more abrupt transition which makes the in-focus areas pop out. I also dislike the almost surgical sharpness of the ASPH designs. If I ever do break down and buy an RF, it would assuredly end up with a selection of ZM and CV lenses rather than Leica's, even if I did buy a M.
I will say that I do like the 90 Summicron-R's drawing style, in both APO and non-APO forms. Dunno exactly why even though that style doesn't do it for me with other lenses.
p.8 #18 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
You might want to try some of the Leica R lenses that were designed less than 20-30 years ago to make a fair comparison to the more modern offerings from Canon, Nikon or Zeiss. A hint is the modern lenses usually are APO, ASPH or both.
As it happens, many of the lenses I'm comparing these '20-30' year old designs with are as old or older than the Leicas, and much, much cheaper. I only own one Canon lens, the 24-105, and I don't keep it for its optical performance, but for its convenience. And considering that Leica hasn't offered anything more recent for SLRs in any but the 90mm focal length, I can only assume they're the best it can do. And for that matter, I don't shoot longer than 135mm much, and the latest 90 Elmarit is widely reputed - by Leicaphiles - to be very nearly as good as the 90AA, if not just as good.
p.8 #19 · M8/Leica People I'm Thinking About Switching
The 19 Elmarit-R ROM, 28 Elmarit-R ROM, 35 Summicron-R, 50 Summilux-R E60, 90 Apo-Summicron-R, 100 Apo-Elmarit-R, 180 Apo-Summicron-R and 180 Apo-Elmarit-R are all superior (IQ-wise) to canon's nearest equivalents.
The 90 Elmarit is a stop slower than the Summicron, that reduces the need for aspherics or exotic glass and tighter tolerances in manufacture, hence why it is so much cheaper. If you need the stop, you need the stop.
I plan on getting a 135/2L (add that to the list above) or a 100/2 for a tele on the Canon, and then I'll have a 2 camera, 3 lens kit that will let me do anything I ever wanted to do...
