i use and like my leica's performance. the issue is price and technology vs. performance.

i sit here watching pbs and some pre-automobile-age photos have an amazing clarity and lack of distortion for a glass plate technology - this goes for multi-multi element cinema lenses too at the movies. many exhibit much less flare than my single focal length ancient designed lenses. yes i know the format can be/is much larger, but GIGO. one cannot enhance what is not on the original. again, i know about the mechanical precision and feel of one of our favorite consumer products. but, how hard can it be to design a good reproduction technology? we gladly scan our leica photo's/negs w/plastic drive artificial light/consumer grade scanner mass market technology.

does it matter to have multicoated aspherical ultralow dispersion radioactive lead/arsenic glasses and cnc machined mounts when it really is just marketing?

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002

Answers

It's not all marketing but OTOH there are very few of us Leicaphiles who push the equipment to the limits of its mechanical or optical performance. One really good thing about all this superb equipment is that it forces us to put the blame for crappy photos where it belongs: ourselves.

I'd love to have the latest APO telyts but the reality is that I've barely scraped the surface of what my old f/6.8 telyts are capable of. Even if I'm only scanning at 2400 dpi I know that I have the tools I need to make photos worthy of a drum scan.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.

The first part of the process, which the glass-plate photos you're referring to didn't have to worry about, is to smash the whole world down into a little 24x36mm rectangle. In that matter, I think we can use all the help we can get.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Hmm. Interesting point. But- a contact print from a large format neg is a different thing from a 10x enlargement. Plus, rangefinder and direct view lenses ARE better than retro-focus lenses- i.e. SLR design.

You have a point about the scanning- but we don't shoot with our Leicas thinking about scaned/online images first and foremost as final product, do we? I shoot for prints or slides, and the scan is a derivative, to show the image- but prints and slides are my intended final. If online was, I'd shoot digital...

Otherwise, the glass is expensive, but only if you buy the latest brand new. Which I have never done- except one CV lens. The most I've spent on any one of my Leica lenses was $800. That's about in line with other cameras- and I like the look of my prints and slides, not to mention the handling of my cameras.

Curious question. You say you like your Leicas. Ok. So spend the same amount of money, buy a good used basic Leica set up- say a body and two lenses- and the same kit- same max apertures, similar features- say an M-4P and 50 f2, 28 f2.8, and a Nikon FM2, 50 f2 28 f2.8- and do you think the 20% to 35% difference in price is warranted by the difference in the slides and prints?

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Ok, I just checked out completed auctions on eBay. So I was way off wtih 20-35% price difference. I think it should be possible to get a decent M4 something a 50 f2 and decent wide angle- say a 35 or a 28 for in the neighborhood of $1500.

OTOH- a decent Nikon setup- say the FM2 I mentioned, with a 50 1.8 and wide angle, say a 28 f2 or so- cost about $600 bucks. So it's a big difference in price. But is the difference in quality worth it? I guess it's up to you.

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.

Steve, I don't believe that Leica glass is the most innovative. Why? Because they haven't managed to do that much better with their SLR glass compared to Nikon, Zeiss, Minolta, Canon counterparts, which also have other considerations like AF modules and focusing cams.

Where leica has managed to excell is in the Rangefinder market with it's design characteristics combining a lens and body where the lens is extremly close to the film, unlike SLR's which have room for things including mirrors, focusing modules, cams etc. I believe this is where Leica shines. Surely they have to make great glass too, but the lack of space between the lens and film makes all the difference.

Don't be fooled my marketing "glass terminology" like aspherical, Low dispersion UD glass, etc. As long as the lens has little distortion, little vignetting, little aberations, sharp resolution and colour, you're doing alright. And of course, if the lens shines at all apertures including full, then you've got yourself a fantastic and "innovative" lens no matter who the maufacturer is.

So, does Leica have the "Leica look?" Hell no! What people are referring to is the increase in sharpness, which then makes subjects poop and seem more realistic. In my opinion, the Leica look is the look where a picture looks extremly realistic and lenses such as the Nikkor 55 Micro, AIP 45/2.8, 28/1.4 and 85/1.4 all have this fingerprint too. In non-low light situations I can see no difference to my 35/1.4 Asph, 50/2 or 90SAA.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

"[S]ome pre-automobile-age photos have an amazing clarity and lack of distortion for a glass plate technology".

What is 'clarity'? Up to about ten years ago, a resolution of 30 lp/mm was absolutely perfect for large format; I don't remember complaints about low resolution. Plus, photographers knew how to handle light in these days--they'd avoid deep shadows and blown-out highlights. I admit, however, that distortion sometimes was an issue in the first decades of photography. Some photographers would choose the lens depending on whether the shot required high contrast and sharpness or low distortion.

"[T]this goes for multi-multi element cinema lenses too at the movies. many exhibit much less flare than my single focal length ancient designed lenses."

Again, we're talking much less resolution than in 35mm photography, thanks to the viewers' distance to the screen. And if there's one area where you have total control about lighting, it's movie shooting: you make damn sure there's no light source pointing directly into the lens or coming even close to it, even if the scene is to appear backlit.

Steve, I find it hard to follow your complaints about scanning technology. When I need quality scans, there's my lab's scanning service.

Tear and wear, of course, are reasons to shop for replacements of gear we own. Likewise, there may be real need for new gear. (E.g., shooting birds is hard if your longest focal length is 90mm.) But "innovativeness" is no value. Why the hell should I buy something if something I own fills my requirements? No product loses any capabilities because a new product with more capabilities (in terms of quality or quantity) is available. Whenever we think something's better, or we need it, because it's new, tear and wear have affected our brains. (Or do I need new gear because there's a gap between my ears? ;-)

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), April 24, 2002.

Kristian - I profoundly disagree with you - are you using colour neg. film? The differences I've found are very clear, like it or not (and I for one don't, since I'd love to be happy with nikon or canon when they're so much more affordable). Douglas - another beautiful shot with gorgeous colours even in a scan and even on screen.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 24, 2002.

This thread goes much like the lingo that used to be used for high end hifi. Get the best source you can and then spend less and less as you go down the chain, so get a mega expensive CD player and get cheapo speakers. This will produce a better sound that a cheap CD player and expensive speakers. In other words, its best to extract the most you can from the source (and attempt to preserve it along the way), so yes, I do believe that Leicas efforts in glass technology, computation, and body housings pays off.

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 24, 2002.

Not a great scan, but a pic taken with the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D lens shot wide open.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Ok here I go again....hope it works

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

In my opinion, the Leica look is the look where a picture looks extremly realistic and lenses such as the Nikkor 55 Micro, AIP 45/2.8, 28/1.4 and 85/1.4 all have this fingerprint too.

This is not my experience with the 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I see weaker colors and more flare compared with photos made with the 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), April 24, 2002.

Kristian's photo:



-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

I shoot with both Leica M and Nikon cameras. As far as the meaning of the word "innovative", I'm not sure if new always equals better. I prefer some old Leica lenses to the newer ones for reasons that can't be measured on a MTF graph. I have some lenses from Nikon that would win a "sharpness" contest against some Leica lenses, but that doesn't always mean a better photograph. Below are two shots made with two normal lenses, a 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor and a 50mm Summicron M, both used at full aperture.

The Nikon shot is very sharp. On the original print, every little back-lit hair is super crisp. The weakness in the shot is the background blur... it is too busy. The one thing I was able to do is shoot outdoors in bright light at f/2.8 using a shutter that goes to 1/8000th. I'd kill to be able to use my Leica M lenses like this without filter to cut the light. 55mm Micro-Nikkor @ f/2.8

With the Leica shot, the image is pretty good considering I shot at 1/15th of a second, (the Nikon would never give me a similar result at this speed). I also like the very smooth bokeh of the Leica lens. On paper, I have tested the Nikkor sharper than the Summicron (albeit with a 1 stop difference in apertures), but to me, the Summicron shot is better for reasons that can't be stated on a lens test. 50mm Summicron M @ f/2.0

When comparing lenses from other companies, I don't know about words like "better than" or "worse than"... I just say they are different.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), April 24, 2002.

karl, would that be linn lingo?

kristian, very very nice! and for such a young chap.

i realize relative distances, perspectives and sizes wrt film format and tv/cinema presentation. m. brady's civil war photo's are amazingly sharp. the leaps of tech from kitty hawk to the space shuttle hasn't seemed to have taken place in the photo world in the same time frame. maybe there's little to improve, classical and quantum optical properties long since known.

wrt cinema, i meant shots taken with the sun IN the frame, sure you see colored aperature images, but the main image is not whitened-out as much as, say dixon's recent photo of renee.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

oh, oliver, please change your lens cleaning solution to something other than methanol. ;^)

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

i realized something, those old timers used big heavy wooden tripods, duh. even a well designed pinhole camera will give fair results.

the innovation led to portability.

still my best lenses were designed in the 50's, 35/50 crons and swc/m cf. and kodachrome 25 was around for a while too.

as far as apo,asph,ed glass, they allow designers to correct aberations for better or worse given the selection of compromises.

-- Steve (leitz_not_leica@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Al, Thanks for posting your photos. Both seem fine technically, but I can't decide which is more pleasing to the eye, which I think is what you're getting at in your comparison. I can only conclude that scans don't do the originals justice- indeed, relying on 100 dpi for a screen shot, but expecting something like 1000-2000 or more dpi if hardcopy of similar dimensions must mean that you're losing a lot of information online.

I do think maybe older lenses have something about them. IMO, while the 35/2ASP indeed is a wonderful performer- edge to edge sharpness and low edge distortion in particular, I find images by the Hexar AF 35mm, based on a pre-Asp. Leica 35/2 design, to be more pleasing at times. The edge distortion is greater, true (portraits with this lens seem often much less flattering than those with the modern Leica version), but often there is a 3-D quality from the Hexar that I first noticed. Maybe b/c I got the Leica lens later I wasn't as impressed with the latter. Also, in some shots with the Hexar, images, say of a part of a tree w/o bark, seem milky, creamy, smooth- just pleasing.

Unfortunately, I think it's hard to convey all this, the 'gestalt' of the image, on screen.

I have often wondered how hard it would be to send a collection of photos by slugmail, and let each successive recipient send it on with a new address and postage. It might take six months to make the rounds, but it might be more illustrative than our computer screens. Or, perhaps more efficient, post a heavy file [1000+ dpi] somewhere letting peple download and print them on a photo quality printer.

(For instance, if someone wanted to make a point about some images, they could make maybe 5 copies, and send them off to 5 different 'rings' of recipients (like a webring). Say you have 10 recipients in a ring. And say people agree to send things off the day after they receive them- after a look. In the US, on average it'd take 2.5 days; so that's a little over a month for 10. In 6 seeks, 50 people will have seen the hardcopies. Little trickier with internat'l mails.)

-- TS (tsesung@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

Steve, It certainly would be Linn Lingo!!

-- Karl Yik (karl.yik@dk.com), April 24, 2002.

Steve, I don't think you are really able to fairly make the statements you have in this posting. A few posts back you stated that for better or for worse you do your processing at Walmart. There is no way you can judge lens quality if this is your standard for photofinishing. I have 25 years experience with Nikon, Olympus and M & R Leica, and yes there is a definite difference. Wide open, the newer Leica glass is, lens for lens, the sharpest there are. Shadow detail is usually enhanced, at least in the 70's onwards lenses with current multicoatings. And Kristian, I have found this just as true in the R glass. Yes, every manufacturer has it's outstanding lenses. The Olympus 100mm Macrois excellent, as is the Nikkor 105mm F2.8, 85mm F2 etc. But lenses for lens, Leica has (with very few exceptions) consistently suberb lenses across the entire line.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 24, 2002.

Hi Steve and Everyone,

Hmm. They old question. What are we doing using Leicas when there is cheaper and excellent stuff our there? For me the reason is special purpose, namely street photography. I don't feel comfortable doing with an SLR. I too have bought all my Leica stuff used--until now. First time I bought an out of the box Leica camera (an M6 TTL) was on Sept 13 last year. I bought my first new Leica lens (35/2 ASPH) last month.

I like what Leica lenses do. There is a Leica fingerprint (in Erwin Putts's words). But besides that, I like the compactness of the lenses and camera body and the relative quietness of the shutter. Also build quality.

The latest line of aspherical lenses from Leica are truly inovative, in my view. Their performance beats all really and truly.

Past 2 a.m. Good night, friends! Not even proof reading (yawn).

Best,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), April 24, 2002.

Thanks for the help dexter....what did i do wrong?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Depends what you call Innovative.....Olympus makes some great lenses such as the 21/2, 50/2 macro 1:2, 90/2 macro 1:2. And Canon has their 24mm f/1.4 and IS lenses....all with excellent quality of which th results could be called "first class".

Leica's claim to fame is to produce M lenses that are small and built with the highest quality available to the public. The fact that they are simplistic in design coupled to a rangefinder with no mirror IS the deciding factor for many, including myself.....a young photogrpher (23), with a heap of leica gear and no $$$. Go figure?!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 24, 2002.

Innovative? Does it matter so long as the images - like some produced here - are pleasing? And are the Japanese really so innovative? Haven't some of their most successful products been copied from other previous designs?

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), April 24, 2002.

Steve, how did you find out I drink my lens cleaning fluid after use on the optics? :-)

With the sun in the frame, avoiding flare is an achievement. I can't remember that many flare-free cinema shots with such lighting; perhaps I'm distracted by the funny hexagons or septagons that always come with it. OTOH movie is business with a few billion €/$ involved: you can still make money producing gear for movies, unlike still photographic equipment. Plus, given the smaller resolution requirement or smaller frame size (in digital moviecams), optical engineering is easier. Let's face it, Oskar Barnack designed an optical challenge.

-- Oliver Schrinner (piraya@hispavista.com), April 25, 2002.

Kristian - you'll forgive me for pointing out (and I know it's only a scan etc) that the colours on your posted image are very poor (as if they've been printed on an ink jet with 3 colour inks). There is no tonal gradation to speak of on my monitor (a pro la cie). Nikon lenses are sharp, undoubtedly, but to my mind the colour/tone reproduction is coarse at best - your shot would fit in with this feeling.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 25, 2002.

Al - FWIW I don't at all agree with TS. The 50 summicron shot you've posted is, to my eye, beautiful - the nikon shot ugly (I'm not talking about subject matter of course!!). Maybe I'm too "black or white", but to me there is absolutely no comparison - if someone wants to take a shot of me, my kids or my wife with 35mm - they'd better be using something flattering - which in my experience means contax or leica. If, on the other hand, I wanted to show how ugly urban life is in parts of the UK, Nikon would be absolutely ideal.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), April 25, 2002.

Al - FWIW I don't at all agree with TS. The 50 summicron shot you've posted is, to my eye, beautiful - the nikon shot ugly...

Well, for one thing, the quality of light is different between these two shots- one (nikon) has much more specular light, the other is diffuse. As Al says, it's just different, not necessarily one better than the other. I can see how the specular light seems harsh, and the other much calmer and more subtle; yet I find the blocky OOF areas in the background a bit distracting. That's why I couldn't decide.

Where I have really noticed a difference actually is in situations where the OOF (out of focus) parts aren't that OOF. Less than wide open, more at f3.5-5.6. I find in these cases that the OOF areas are so gently OOF that the subject rather pops out- and that's where you get this 3-D feel- the edges are really well defined.

And again, I think it's hard to tell at 100 dpi online. In fact, I challenge anyone to post a series of photos- same images (focal length, quality of light, aperture), with diff. lens makes, and take a poll as to which is more pleasant- without listing what the lens is of course!- will there be a consensus? My guess is no (but I'm willing to be proven wrong!). I have neither ready access to a scanner nor exact analogues between my Leica lenses and my non-Leica SLR stuff (hmmm.... on 2nd thought, maybe I can do one between the Pentax 85/1.8 and Leica 90 Elmarit- uh, did I just make my weekend plans...?) ;-)

-- Tse-Sung (tsesung@yahoo.com), April 25, 2002.

Jumping in on the subject heading:

Leica's newest designs (28 'cron, 35 'cron/lux) ARE truly innovative, and not just for the ASPH surfaces. They basically went back to the computer screen and started from scratch, and came up with a set of elements (with concave front surfaces, no symmetry front-to-back, etc.) that bear little or no relationship to previous designs (from any source) for these focal lengths - and solved some optical problems (coma, curvature of field) in ways not achieved before.

On the other hand, many of their 'great' (or at least notable) lenses (35 preASPH 'crons, 50 'crons of all ages, Noctilux, 75 'lux) are based on ye olde double-gauss design - decades old - with a lot of fine- tuning to make them VERY GOOD double-gausses. But not what I would call 'innovative'.

In fact, prior to 1990 most of their M designs were basically either D- G, or Tessar/triplet, variants, or farmed out to someone else (Schneider, mostly).

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 25, 2002.

This was the first pic i tried to post....terrible scan, but the print looks much sharper. Couldn't do this with my Summicron, unless I used a 5X ND filter.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 26, 2002.