View Poll Results: Do you think Leica lenses outperform the top end lenses from Nikon/Canon/Minolta?

Voters
454. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they are the best lenses around.

    165 36.34%
  • No, I think the Nikon/Canon/Minolta ones are better

    29 6.39%
  • No, don't think there is a difference. The non-Leicas are just as good

    79 17.40%
  • They might be, but I probably can't tell the difference anyway.

    181 39.87%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 126

Thread: Do you think Leica lenses outperform the top end lenses from Nikon/Canon?

  1. #21
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,929
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default jed, you're right...

    Sri didnt talk about prices.

    ed
    shaddap and just shoot .... up close
    Walkeast

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: jed, you're right...

    Originally posted by ed9119
    Sri didnt talk about prices.
    L O L


  3. #23
    BenJR
    Guests

    Default

    Hi jed

    No wanting to be taken for a fool, unable to substantiate my claims that Nikon was slower than Canon and Minolta, I searched the web and came up with these.

    Do keep in mind I am a Nikon user from the begining uptil now. I just do not want to be put down without stating factually my basis for claming my points earlier.

    As for the infamous blue pieces canvas thingy..hey its an open market. If someone's picture of an out-of-focus person can fetch US$5000 then its his gain, no one is forcing the buyer to let that cash out of his wallet.

    Ben.

    Let me quote the following first.

    ". If you compare the bokeh in wide open shots from a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 50/1.4 Summilux, you will see what I mean. There is a very visible difference. FWIW, I have found the bokeh I prefer mostly in German lenses, but also in Minolta lenses. I now use Minolta for my AF slr system and I couldn't be happier. I can mix Minolta images with those taken with Leica lenses and there is no obvious clash of image character. "

    "Some Japanese manufacturer, I guess, started to say in mid 80s that a beautiful bokeh, a qualty of out-of-focus image, is very important as well as a sharp in-focus object in photography. The first runner was Minolta. This is why we use Japanese word for such a concept, I suppose. " Yoshihiko Takinami
    Osaka, Japan
    yoshihiko@takinami.com

    "Leica, Zeiss, Canon and Minolta generally design for this though some Nikkors like the 85mm/1.4 AF-D are designed for better background definition, and the DC lenses allow the photographer to manipulate the defocus blur characteristics. "Roland Vink roland.vink@ait.ac.nz

    "Nikon doesn't seem to know it exists, or care about it. Their lenses
    appear to be hit-and-miss. They recently released two lenses with
    "defocus control", the 105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2, which supposedly allows
    you to alter the quality of the OOF parts of the image. I haven't used
    them. Their 85mm f/1.4 reportedly has nice bokeh, what I've seen of the
    60mm macro looks pretty good, but general consensus has it that the 105mm
    f/2.5 is the best they've ever produced with regard to bokeh. Superb
    portrait lens. Wish I could get it in Leica R mount. "Martin Howard howard.390@osu.edu


    And as for "But for now, the differences are subtle, more "poetic", something which , like wine-tasting, only the few can discern"

    I did not mean it nor intended that to sound snobbish/elitist or arrogant. But its a fact that taste is acquired. A respectable MOVIE CRITIC has to go through the requisite academic studies, which requires him to watch many many films and dissect them and then come up with essays on things which most of us would only comment in a few lines such as "not bad/Great/boring".


    I quote below someone who shares my opinion on the subtle differences between the lens makers.

    "It's like a lot of the experiments run by audiophiles (the folks with
    $10,000 stereo systems). Sure, you can prove that there's a difference noticeable by a trained listener. But you can't "prove" that the difference is an actual improvement in the listening experience.But I did see an example which illustrated the "parallel line" problem very well with overhead wires in a landscape. They definitely looked less annoying in the "good bokeh" picture. If I come across the URL again, I'll forward it.I know I'm going to regret writing this, because it gives the bokeh snobs language equivalent to a wine snob. Ah, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 has a fine bokeh, round, full in the center, with a melting soft edge and a wonderful aftertaste of cherries and leather.

    Ciao!

    Joe wiz@netfrog.net

    All of which can be found in here :

    http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/bokeh.html

  4. #24

    Default

    Placebo effect.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by BenJR
    Guys! Guys! Guys!

    Seems most of us are too free with all these opnions.
    Stop comparing! Go out and take pictures! Even the most wonderful camera and lens will be of no use to those who do not practice enough.

    SEE! COMPOSE! SHOOT! SHOW!

    Ben
    Ben, don't u know how to take your own advice? Or was that just stalling while you went to do your research to back up your case? As I said before, you were one of the first to dive in in the first place. No further questions.

  6. #26

    Default

    You know guys, if you want to obesses over bokeh, it's all up to you. After all, I realised one thing. People tend to concentrate more on in focus elements than out of focus backgrounds. Ever had a friend or relative comment: "WOW! SUCH LOVELY OUT OF FOCUS BACKGROUNDS!! BLENDS SUCH SMOOTHLY AND CREAMILY INTO EACH OTHER!"

    No right?

  7. #27

    Default

    Originally posted by YSLee
    You know guys, if you want to obesses over bokeh, it's all up to you. After all, I realised one thing. People tend to concentrate more on in focus elements than out of focus backgrounds. Ever had a friend or relative comment: "WOW! SUCH LOVELY OUT OF FOCUS BACKGROUNDS!! BLENDS SUCH SMOOTHLY AND CREAMILY INTO EACH OTHER!"

    No right?
    Got. Edmund lor. *ducks*

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Richard


    Got. Edmund lor. *ducks*
    What? Ducks?





    But seriously, Edmund is more:

    WOW What nice photos you have!! You must have a lens with very good bokeh!!!
    (Sorry Edmund... now I really duck)

  9. #29

    Default

    I don't know any of you guys!

  10. #30

    Default

    I'm sure he'll forgive you if you'll pass him the Canon 400mm DO lens. *G* But I can already imagine what's the first thing he'll do with it...

  11. #31
    BenJR
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed


    Ben, don't u know how to take your own advice? Or was that just stalling while you went to do your research to back up your case? As I said before, you were one of the first to dive in in the first place. No further questions.
    Hi jed

    My first contribution was my own opinions. However you seemed to challenge my opinions, which I cannot understand why?

    The topic was is there any difference between the lenses, and I stated my opinions. I NEVER CHALLENGED ANYONE ELSES! And then you had to bring up my arguments and try to discredit them. Therefore again on last nights post I am substantiating my claims with opinions that others share with me too.

    With this post please stop quoting and bringing up my opinions again. You are entitled to inform the public of your opinions but please do not try to shoot other people down with your own.

    Anyway Jed, I am not stalling, I bring my camera everyday and take pictures when I see something interesting. I practice what I preach.

    Good bye!

  12. #32

    Default

    Originally posted by BenJR


    My first contribution was my own opinions. However you seemed to challenge my opinions, which I cannot understand why?
    This is a free forum, your are entitled to voice your own opinions, and similarly, your opinions are entitled to be debated on. After all, what you state was just an opinion, not a fact or a truth, no?


    The topic was is there any difference between the lenses, and I stated my opinions. I NEVER CHALLENGED ANYONE ELSES! And then you had to bring up my arguments and try to discredit them. Therefore again on last nights post I am substantiating my claims with opinions that others share with me too.
    I think you're being sensitive here. I doubt he's trying to discredit you, but offering a counter argument to what you post.

    Here in ClubSNAP, we have many different types of photographers, each with his own style of photography, and therefore his own idea of what he considers "the truth". As a result, our views may not necessary agree, but that is no reason to believe that someone is out to discredit you.

    Sometimes it does seem a bit frustrating that the other bugger is constantly rebutting you, but take in mind that he has his own set of experiences that have contributed to reinforcing that opinion. If you disgree, why not post up your OWN set of experiences to share? From there on, you can let the reader decide on the issue himself. No need to go all out forcefully make someone agree with you.


    With this post please stop quoting and bringing up my opinions again. You are entitled to inform the public of your opinions but please do not try to shoot other people down with your own.
    Like I said before, this is a free forum. I don't see any problem with anyone offering their own counterpoints to your opinion as long as it doesn't get out of hand. So let us all take a deep breath, think straight, and not let things get out of hand?

    *offers a lollipop to Jed and Ben*

  13. #33
    ClubSNAP Admin Edmund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed



    But seriously, Edmund is more:

    WOW What nice photos you have!! You must have a lens with very good bokeh!!!
    (Sorry Edmund... now I really duck)
    ......

    ok.. you had your fun.. now hand over the 400 f/4 DO IS USM and I'll forgive you like Richard said...

  14. #34

    Default

    You guys are so funny. Making so many noise just because of the difference between Leica, Carl Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and etc. Having the best lens doesn't make you the best photographer wat, its the skills that counts. If you people really want to know the difference, go buy a second hand Leica or Contax body with some lens and try it out lah. The cheapest second hand contax 167MT body in mint condition which I've seen was around S$500+ and maybe I could lend you my spare carl zeiss tessar 45mm F2.8 len to try out but not my camera.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by BenJR
    Guys! Guys! Guys!

    Seems most of us are too free with all these opnions.
    Stop comparing! Go out and take pictures! Even the most wonderful camera and lens will be of no use to those who do not practice enough.

    SEE! COMPOSE! SHOOT! SHOW!

    Ben

  16. #36

    Default

    leica lenses perform BETTER than jap lenses in low light condition.
    i use my fm2 50/1.4, my friend use leica 50/1.4, his pic turn out to be better than my in colour and contrast and sharpness. ( same shutter speed, f-stop, film and on tripod.)

  17. #37
    Kiwi
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by Xpose
    You guys are so funny. Making so many noise just because of the difference between Leica, Carl Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and etc. Having the best lens doesn't make you the best photographer wat, its the skills that counts. If you people really want to know the difference, go buy a second hand Leica or Contax body with some lens and try it out lah. The cheapest second hand contax 167MT body in mint condition which I've seen was around S$500+ and maybe I could lend you my spare carl zeiss tessar 45mm F2.8 len to try out but not my camera.
    Totally agree. Sigh... Why start this post and why are we still at this overkilled topic again??? From the magazines I've read and photo seminars I've attended, pros use all sorts of cameras: Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc. They are all good cameras. But the final clinching point is the art that the photographer creates thru his skills. When u look at many good pictures or images, can u tell exactly from which camera it came from or even which slide film was used? I've seen beautiful ones taken with all the major brands, German or Jap.

    Why don't we spend more time appreciating good pictures instead of debating sharpness among different brands. It's more logical and fruitful to question "should I use digital, 35mm or MF" IMHO.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    LOL sometimes I wanna shout at the cutomers who tell me the Lumix leica lenses are better.... "YEAH AT A SUPER SHARP *TWO* MEGAPIXELS!" at most like ED glass only... Leic Leihomar and LeiLomo lenses... chuwahonne!
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  19. #39

    Default simple

    well...if u r unable to see any diff b/w leica and nikon/canon then dont buy leica coz its hell too expensive even to the rich.

    and if u can tell any difference then...its up to u to spend your own money.

    or if u r rich enough to afford anything then...its also up to u to spend your own money

    ie

    it up to your own taste, man.

  20. #40

    Default

    Hmm..interesting thread..

    Does anyone recommend the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1?

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •