A little bit of Leica/Hermes po*n.

[sideshowbob]

I prefer Zeiss too, if they're on a Hasselblad.

I think most of the obsessional comparative talk about the qualities of various lenses for 35mm cameras is hot air, to be honest. Leica make, and have made, some great lenses, no question, but even secondhand they generally cost more than their quality justifies. At every focal length there are cheaper alternatives which are almost as good, and in some respects may even be better. I like Leica cameras and lenses, and I understand why people love them so much, but I don't think there's anything especially magic about them, and having owned a couple (an M3 and an M6, both used with a 1966 German Summicron 50/2), I wouldn't lose any sleep if I never had one again. I wouldn't say no to an S2 though.

 

[auric]

avole,


How's this for sharp? (That's me reflected in her eyes. Film capture, then scanned with a Minolta DiMage Scan 5400.)

Taken with a Zeiss or Leica lens?

Joe

Joe, if people need a red arrow to see your reflection then A Zeiss or Leica lens is not the problem.

 

[cliffpatte]

I prefer Zeiss too, if they're on a Hasselblad.

I think most of the obsessional comparative talk about the qualities of various lenses for 35mm cameras is hot air, to be honest. Leica make, and have made, some great lenses, no question, but even secondhand they generally cost more than their quality justifies. At every focal length there are cheaper alternatives which are almost as good, and in some respects may even be better. I like Leica cameras and lenses, and I understand why people love them so much, but I don't think there's anything especially magic about them, and having owned a couple (an M3 and an M6, both used with a 1966 German Summicron 50/2), I wouldn't lose any sleep if I never had one again. I wouldn't say no to an S2 though.

well, yes, the planar design on the 80/2.8 V series is very nice. I've seen some 'Blad documentation showing why the newer fuji's are somehow better, but remain to be convinced. My Zeiss 100mm makro planar for Nikon fit is ace, but there is no equivalent Leica to compare it against. If I wanted ultimate sharpness I would probably be using the Nikon 135 DC lens instead

 

[Cesare]

Agreed, much nonsense is spoken about the mythical magical qualities of various lenses. There are so many decent lenses out there, and being built every day, you really aren't going to be limited by your lenses unless you stick with the cheapest possible bundled zoom on a modern camera.

I spent a very enjoyable day with three mamiya primes, a 150/3.5, 80/2.8 and 45/2.8. Good combination, lovely look, and really really sharp. Anyone ever heard of any of these? Exactly, just good quality, workman-like lenses that pros have used day in, day out for years producing excellent results without fuss.

 

[sojourner]

Last weekend me and my daughters made pictures with just a small hole in a piece of old soft drink can. I made the hole with the tip of a corkscrew. We didn't have any way to attach it to a digital body so we just used old shoeboxes as the 'dark room' and recorded straight to some old Ilford Multigrade RC. Then we made contact positives.

They loved it and. Not D800 sharp, not even lowly and old fashioned M9 sharp, but fit for purpose.

FWIW, I like rangefinders and film. beyond that, I'm pretty brand agnostic. I was offered a D800 and, whilst I appreciate what it can deliver, I concluded that it would just stay at home. Most of my 35mm lenses are Zeiss, one is a '59 Leica 4/135 that was delivered for £150 - that apo-telyt is too much for an occasional use lens. I've never felt tempted to go out and buy the Leica (or Voigtlander) 'equivalents' to compare. I'm sure they're all good enough for me.

In other formats I have Mamiya and Schneider.

All but one digital body and one lens were bought secondhand

Mike

Mike

 

[cliffpatte]

Most of my 35mm lenses are Zeiss, one is a '59 Leica 4/135 that was delivered for £150 - that apo-telyt is too much for an occasional use lens.

Mike, when I had the Apo-Telyt M lens (which I bought and sold for a reasonable profit) I found that its very much in a limited market sector. I set up and run the flickr group and it didn't pick up many members (unlike the seemingly more estoteric noctilux)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1307968@N23/pool/

this one was OK

 

[sojourner]

Cliff

I think it's a abulous lens, but I just don't use 135mm lenses on rfs enough - perhaps I should.

Interestingly, I really like the 135 elmar (not tele-elmar!) and I'm sure that it's not really that sharp in comparison

Mike

 

[cliffpatte]

Cliff

I think it's a abulous lens, but I just don't use 135mm lenses on rfs enough - perhaps I should.

Interestingly, I really like the 135 elmar (not tele-elmar!) and I'm sure that it's not really that sharp in comparison

Mike

you're right that 135mm on a rangefinder isn't that useful as the 0.85 or lower magnification viewfinder makes focussing v.hard.

perhaps it would make more sense on a fuji x-pro1

I do like using 135mm or even 180mm handheld on a 35mm SLR though (OM4 / FM3a / or DSLR, as its great for isolating a subject


Battersea Park Lucy by cliffpatte, on Flickr

or


Lucy (DC) by cliffpatte, on Flickr

 

[Paulicus]

I like that bottom one, Cliff.

 

[sideshowbob]

Last weekend me and my daughters made pictures with just a small hole in a piece of old soft drink can. I made the hole with the tip of a corkscrew. We didn't have any way to attach it to a digital body so we just used old shoeboxes as the 'dark room' and recorded straight to some old Ilford Multigrade RC. Then we made contact positives.

This is the right way to do it. Photography is as much about the accidents as it is about the certain, and there are very few accidents with digital. And sharpness is for people who don't have anything interesting to say.

 

[cliffpatte]

Cheers PW

 

[IWC Doppel]

The Planar is arguably one of the best lenses ever made. Let's also not forget the Tessar, which revolutionised lens designed, and has been copied by every lens designer out there.

By the way, I don't think Leica lenses are bad at all, certainly in terms of 35mm photography anyway - harder to judge for digital, of course - only that Zeiss are better. Not all Zeiss, of course, but they generally have a bite that Leica seem to lack.

I am afraid you are talking rubbish.......

Zeiss and CV make some good lenses and if you pixel peek you will find a few equivalent later Zeiss 'better' than the older Leica. If you can find me a Ziess that is better than any of my Leica lenses I am interested......

Regarding the planar 50, I really didn't like it, as it gives a very flat image in comparison to the 50 Lux (pre asph) 50 Lux ASPH the 50 Summicron and the 50 Elmar-M. Try comparing the 50 planar to the 1979 designed Summicron and then the new 50 APO Summicron and then try and be definitive about the planar 50/2

If you have ever shot with a 28 Summicron ASPH and think it lacks any bite then you are very mistaken.

The recent 18, 21 and 25 are very good lenses indeed. But the 35 and 50 planers, good though they are don't IMO compare to the best Leica 35 or 50's

Zeiss are clearly of superb pedigree but Leica lenses are still No1 IMO

 

[sojourner]

I am afraid you are talking rubbish.......

Zeiss and CV make some good lenses and if you pixel peek you will find a few equivalent later Zeiss 'better' than the older Leica. If you can find me a Ziess that is better than any of my Leica lenses I am interested......

Regarding the planar 50, I really didn't like it, as it gives a very flat image in comparison to the 50 Lux (pre asph) 50 Lux ASPH the 50 Summicron and the 50 Elmar-M. Try comparing the 50 planar to the 1979 designed Summicron and then the new 50 APO Summicron and then try and be definitive about the planar 50/2

If you have ever shot with a 28 Summicron ASPH and think it lacks any bite then you are very mistaken.

The recent 18, 21 and 25 are very good lenses indeed. But the 35 and 50 planers, good though they are don't IMO compare to the best Leica 35 or 50's

Zeiss are clearly of superb pedigree but Leica lenses are still No1 IMO

Oh Oh here we go

 

[mmterror]

I dunno you spend a fortune on gear, lenses, software all to squash it down, stuff it on Facebook for us to look at on crappy cheap uncalibrated 1366x768 6bit TN panels with 60% of RGB gamut if lucky.

(I admit I have calibrated IPS and PVA panel screens here)

 

[topoxforddoc]

I dunno you spend a fortune on gear, lenses, software all to squash it down, stuff it on Facebook for us to look at on crappy cheap uncalibrated 1366x768 6bit TN panels with 60% of RGB gamut if lucky.

(I admit I have calibrated IPS and PVA panel screens here)

Quite right. But now if you print large, then that’s very different. That’s when you see the differences. Wet print, dry print, it doesn’t matter - but just make the prints large. I don’t print anything smaller than 16x12 wet or A3 dry. A 20x16 wet print is a real thing of beauty.

 

[avole]

Interesting that both the Tessar and the Planar designs were used by Leitz for their Elmar and Summicron lenses, so really there's not a lot of point comparing them since they're both Zeiss designs!

 

[Joe P]

avole,

By the way, I don't think Leica lenses are bad at all, certainly in terms of 35mm photography anyway - harder to judge for digital, of course - only that Zeiss are better. Not all Zeiss, of course, but they generally have a bite that Leica seem to lack.

Interesting that both the Tessar and the Planar designs were used by Leitz for their Elmar and Summicron lenses, so really there's not a lot of point comparing them since they're both Zeiss designs!

I think you pwned yourself.

Joe

 

[IWC Doppel]

Interesting that both the Tessar and the Planar designs were used by Leitz for their Elmar and Summicron lenses, so really there's not a lot of point comparing them since they're both Zeiss designs!

That's a little like saying all mid or front engines are the same so no need to drive

Lens designs have moved on from the Mandler era at Leica, but take a shot with a 50 Noctilux f1.0 or a 75 Summilux f1.4 and there is still a hell of a lot of magic in early designs.

My favourite lens was built in 1988 one of the first to have aspherical ground surfaces. The latest leica outperforms on MTF's but not rendering and the look.

I am sure I will find a Zeiss at some point I want, but to date I have always preferred Leica glass.

 

[auric]

If it feels right then do it, be it Zeiss or Leica - the customer is ALWAYS right.

 

[avole]

That's a little like saying all mid or front engines are the same so no need to drive

Lens designs have moved on from the Mandler era at Leica, but take a shot with a 50 Noctilux f1.0 or a 75 Summilux f1.4 and there is still a hell of a lot of magic in early designs.

My favourite lens was built in 1988 one of the first to have aspherical ground surfaces. The latest leica outperforms on MTF's but not rendering and the look.

I am sure I will find a Zeiss at some point I want, but to date I have always preferred Leica glass.

Don't think I'd agree there at all. The positioning of each lens element, grouping, the curvature of each, distance between etc contributes rather more to the lens, owing to the fact it defines how the lens performs, than a particular type of vehicle.

Types of glass, coating (and note that the Planar was designed in 1896 and it wasn't until anti-reflective lens coating appeared that it overtook the 1902 designed Tessar for popularity) all have an impact, of course, but optical design is paramount.

Summilux is another Planar variant, I think.