At this point, the draw of Leica lenses is really the rendering, specifically the color/contrast, which I think is preferable to most Leica or CV at the same FL. I like their older glass, that has way more character and I can't get that draws the same/similar enough. Their new stuff, I don't find that distinct or technically better enough to justify the price.
For instance, I enjoyed the 35 Lux FLE to the ZM 35/1.4 (large, stiff focusing ring) or CV 35/1.5 (lack of punch, just kind of meh photos IMO). Having said that, Leica's often have worse flare resistance. The CV 28/2 ASPH and Leica 28/2 ASPH v2, pretty much draw the exact same, though I again the images from the Leica are nicer to me given color and contrast. Same with the CV 50/1.2 versus the 50/1.4 Lux. Very similar draws, though the Lux has better CA correction and micro-contrast and short distance performance, while the CV has better flare resistance and an extra half-stop.
To me it's mostly if a) you can spend that extra dough for a color/contrast preference b) there's for sure some dorky Leica snotty culture stuff going on.
If I wasn't budget conscious like many Leica shooters, I'd probably own 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Lux ASPH and 28/2 ASPH. But instead I own a 50/1 Noct, 35 Lux pre-asph, and if I had more cash allocated, I'd pick up an 80 Lux again. But not their newer stuff.
Jun 17, 2024 at 11:58 AM
Previous versions of nehemiahphoto's message #16573576 « Optics: What does Leica do better these days? »
