I found this at the Leica homepage forum - it pretty says it all.

Details -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leica Mi, 25. April 2001 - 00:57:46 Bob Nandell Dear Leica engineers: This month marks my 40th year of using these marvelous little cameras as a working newspaper photographer.(My very first Leica was a Model II with a 50mm Summar found second-hand). Through the decades with M2, M3, M4, M4-2, M4-P and Leicaflex SL, R3, R4, R4S series and a host of new and second-hand lenses the images have been fabulous. And,TOTAL RELIABILITY was never a question. The paper I worked at switched to digital company-issue gear, which I use with some dismay and sometimes distrust, but the faithful Leicas continue to churn out my personal work. The digital machine does much of the daily newspaper work now, but the Leicas continue to put sparkling prints for galleries and my own walls. My thanks.

Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your name E-mail (optional) Subject Your Message --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 25, 2001

Answers

I took some B&W prints to the hanging judge for a local exhibition whilst he was teaching a class on a photographic course. He immediately said "You use a Leica don't you ". I said that I did, whereupon all the students wanted to know how he knew. He said there is no other lens that gives the tonal range of a Leica lens and in black and white they have no competitors - all Japanese lenses sell on their very high contrast - even Zeiss can't match Leica. He then proceeded to tell the students that they probably couldn't afford Leica lenses but I said that secondhand they were quite reasonable.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), April 25, 2001.

Read this month's column by Herbert Keppler for an interesting discussion about whether Leica's optics are better than the competition's.

-- Jim MacKenzie (photojim@yahoo.com), April 26, 2001.

Read this month's column by Herbert Keppler for an interesting discussion about whether Leica's optics are better than the competition's.

Noooooooooo! Usenet is coming to Lusenet!

Primes from most manufacturers have been pretty good for decades now - - back in 1980 Ansel Adams wrote:

More recently, the computer has moved into the industry, and practically all lenses made within the last decade or two are excellent -- often more precise than even the most exacting practical photographer requires.

Keppler had a point to make, and he did it by choosing an "oldie but goodie" that is still extremely well thought of (called one of the best Japanses 50mm lenses somewhere in the rec.photo.* infighting) to compare with a more modern 50 Summicron, and he chose to do so at a diffraction-limited aperture.

We can all guess what he found -- exactly what he expected to find.

What did he determine about modern Leica vs old Pentax? That if you stop down to f8 and enlarge to less than 11x14 that great old lenses compare reasonably well to great new lenses in trivial situations.

What didn't he determine? How the lenses compare wide-open, or in flare-prone situations, or with large enlargements, of how out of focus areas are rendered, etc.

I think it's a deliberately misleading article. Having said that, it sure does stir up some lively debate.

--Derek Zeanah

-- Derek Zeanah (derek@zeanah.com), April 26, 2001.

The manager of our local camera store just finished a project of taking exactly the same shot of several subjects at the same exposures with the current Zeiss primes and some recent Leica lenses. It was intesting to notice that the Zeiss lenses appeared to have a slightly higher contrast and maybe a bit more apparant sharpness. The Leica lenses reproduced better shadow detail, however, and this was very noticeable in almost all of the images. This may be the "tonal range" a previous poster referred to. It would have beeen interesting to have added some of the Nikon SLR lenses into the comparison. My theory about all this is that if the results you get make you happy, and you can afford the equipment, enjoy. If you can't see the difference or don't care, save yourself a bundle of cash and buy something less expensive that will give 90% of the performance for 20% of the money.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 27, 2001.