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 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 126

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

  1. #81
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA, United States
    Posts
    72

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

    Leica's bokeh resembles gaussian blur and are tack sharp wide open (even more remarkable is how compact and light they are). The Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 is phenomenal. First of all it's aspherical so you don't get spherical aberration when used wide open. And the stuff in focus is tack sharp wide open; meaning it can be used wide open, which is the whole point of an f/1 lens.

    But of course, theres no such thing as a free lunch and such phenomenal quality comes with a phenomenal price tag as well.

  2. #82

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

    They might be, but I probably can't tell the difference anyway.

  3. #83
    Senior Member zoossh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    8,725

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

    for practical purposes, does leica lens have any mounts that fits nikon bodies?

  4. #84
    Senior Member zoossh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    8,725

    Default Re: i'm sooo tired & fed up with this kind of questions

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    There is a place for those who think that the equipment is secondary to the photographer and his technique. But there is also a place for people who want to discuss equipment. One should not try to say that others' discussions are worthless.

    Contrary to most beliefs, a camera is not just a light tight box, its design and functionality directly affects ease of use, reliability, performance, compatibility, etc. which affects how you use your equipment, what it is great at and what it is not good at.

    Ditto, a lens is not just something to focus light with, its very design depends on the optical approach chosen by its designer, what choices have been made wrt the optical aberrations, and thus determines what it is good at and what it is weak at. Thus you can match a lens to a shot if you know what you want to shoot and what you value in a picture.

    There's obviously strengths and weaknesses in every lens. It's easy to get religious about C vs N or (in this case) L vs rest of the world. This is unfortunate. But when the price of Leica lenses is so high compared to other lenses, is it not legitimate to ask whether you're getting more for it compared to other lenses?

    However, I do think performance should be looked as a whole, and just in terms of optical performance, but also physical performance-- construction, quality of materials, reliability, weather resistance, weight, ruggedness, etc.
    good point. adding to the newbie guide.

    http://www.clubsnap.org/forums/showp...2&postcount=42

  5. #85
    Senior Member Hacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    4,239

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

    The Sharpest SLR Lenses we’ve ever Tested

    http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9...25711C00693B3F

    "The new ZEISS ZF lenses went to test for resolving power recently. Attached to a Nikon F6, which was mounted on a Sachtler heavy duty tripod, we exposed our Eastman resolution test chart onto Kodak Imagelink HQ film. The best we had ever achieved before with any SLR lenses was 250 lp/mm.

    The new Planar T* 1.4/85 ZF achieved that same resolution at f/5.6, and even down to f/2.

    The new Planar T* 1,4/50 ZF went even further: It reached 320 lp/mm in the aperture range from f/5.6 to f/2.8, and 250 lp/mm at f/2.

    The resolution test chart was placed in the center of the frame, and the negatives were inspected directly on a research microscope. No other process involving projection (through even the best enlarging lens) or digitizing (in today’s best currently available scanners) is capable of transferring such high resolution values.

    What we are saying is this: Carl Zeiss lenses are capable of capturing enormous amounts of information, if required, and will not be the limiting factor in the imaging process. Knowing that the lens you are using is the strongest link in the chain always inspires confidence, and may be critically important in some cases."

    Resolving Power Record with ZEISS Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM

    http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9...25711C006FC2C2

    "When Hasselblad staff photographer Jens Karlsson took demo photos for the first Zeiss Ikon brochure in 2004, his photo of the carousel, taken with the ZM-Biogon 25 stood out for its enormous detail and clarity. So we used a ZM-Biogon 25 in a recent test to determine maximum resolving power. The high resolution film of choice was the SPUR Orthopan UR supplied and processed by SPUR.

    The result was a whopping 400 lp/mm on film, recorded with the Biogon 25 at f/4 in the center of the image. This value, 400 lp/mm, corresponds to the maximum resolution theoretically possible at f/4; in other words it represents the calculated “diffraction limited” performance at this aperture. It is noteworthy that this test was conducted with a production lens on a production camera, indicating that the film was precisely positioned and flat.

    Let’s just say that this test is relevant to everyday photography the same way the top speed of a Formula 1 race car relates to everyday personal transportation. Of course, many people enjoy watching Formula 1 races ..."

  6. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    kuala lumpur
    Posts
    44

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

    not necessarily, in terms of optical quality, i think canon, nikon is almost on par with the leica... it's just that the leicas give a different photo output look unlike other lenses manufactured... i guess that's the leica 'glow' or magic that's so revered after... just my 2cents...
    :) rangefinder rules!

  7. #87

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

    Quote Originally Posted by framus View Post
    not necessarily, in terms of optical quality, i think canon, nikon is almost on par with the leica... it's just that the leicas give a different photo output look unlike other lenses manufactured... i guess that's the leica 'glow' or magic that's so revered after... just my 2cents...
    Blasphemy!

    For those of us who have used Leica or Zeiss glass, we know what we would rather want. Perceptions of value is the only thing that stops a lot of us from getting the better glass, and we all know which is the better glass.

  8. #88

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

    Quote Originally Posted by framus View Post
    not necessarily, in terms of optical quality, i think canon, nikon is almost on par with the leica... it's just that the leicas give a different photo output look unlike other lenses manufactured... i guess that's the leica 'glow' or magic that's so revered after... just my 2cents...
    Every lens has a sweet spot, meaning at some apeture, it's the sharpest. Leica lenses, do not have a sweet spot.

    Lecia lenses have a "sweet zone". It is sharp throughout the entire range of apeture.

    Now, what were you saying aobut optical quality?
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,311

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

    Guys,
    I obviously have not read 5 pages of posts... but, I have owned and used Leica R-lenses, Cosina-Voigtlander lenses, Nikon lenses, canon lenses ... (not counting schneider, Pentax and Zeiss Jena/Pentacon) and, in my opinion ...
    they are all different tools/paint brushes. Use the one that suits the purpose at hand.

    Glass:
    The "look" you want should govern your choice. Optical design and technology plays a great part in this.
    For example, sonnar designs tend to be softer wide open and are popular for potraiture. Double-gauss designs are heavier but supposedly give better edge-edge definition.

    Before Angenieux developed the non-retrofocal design, the widest lenses you could buy for 135format (FF) was the 35mm. All modern wide angle lenses are derived from their ground-breaking "inverted telephoto" design which allows you to go wider in any camera with a mirrorbox. However, all rangefinder users will testify that RF wideangles are still sharper and suffer less distortion ... because their more primitive WA designs allow the rear element to be placed nearer to focal plane i.e. less light loss when light rays travel from glass to media (film or sensor).

    Media:

    Media size plays a part too. Having grown up in the generation which debated 135format vs 6x45/6x6/6x9 vs 4x5, and now witnessed APS-C vs FF ... the argument remains. When your format is bigger, it is easier and cheaper to design better lenses... the media is not so critical.

    Also, unlike film media which accepts non-linear light rays, digital sensors have a more limited "angle" of incidence... so that's why some film lenses look washed out on digital.

    Build quality:
    Any decent non-budget lens should be fine in terms of build quality. Of the 5 Leica-R lenses I had, two of them had to be serviced at some point for mechanical failure... no better or worse than my nikon AIS lenses. Leica lenses just feel more solid because they still use brass in a lot of their lenses i.e. heavy.

    If you ask me now... I would say that each brand has its stars and its dogs. For Leica, it is the Summicron lenses which are the stars... and the summilux are mostly just over engineered for incremental gain. Again, you see this argument bearing out when people compare canon lenses like the EF 85/1.8 vs 85/1.2.

    I personelly know a guy who works at a sister company of Leica Camera and knows people at the factory at Wetzlar. If Leica could afford more in R&D, they won't be designing and building lenses they were they are... its marketing that is keeping their mystique alive. They would go as modern as the Japanese... its just that their R&D budget is too small, and they don't have the scale of production. You can read similar comments from their CEO in interviews.

    Actually, the least problematic lenses I've ever used are EOS lenses. Only one has ever needed a servicing in the 15 years I've been using EOS . Being largely electronic and using little oil, they suffer less problems. Their biggest problems are mostly camera related...

    though after observing for 15 years, I would say that today's L-lenses are definitely not as "luxury" as those from their FD years, or early EOS.
    Last edited by Keltzar; 18th December 2007 at 03:12 PM.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,311

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacker View Post
    [SIZE=4]
    The resolution test chart was placed in the center of the frame, and the negatives were inspected directly on a research microscope. No other process involving projection (through even the best enlarging lens) or digitizing (in today’s best currently available scanners) is capable of transferring such high resolution values.

    What we are saying is this: Carl Zeiss lenses are capable of capturing enormous amounts of information, if required, and will not be the limiting factor in the imaging process. Knowing that the lens you are using is the strongest link in the chain always inspires confidence, and may be critically important in some cases."

    [SIZE=4] The result was a whopping 400 lp/mm on film, recorded with the Biogon 25 at f/4 in the center of the image. This value, 400 lp/mm, corresponds to the maximum resolution theoretically possible at f/4; in other words it represents the calculated “diffraction limited” performance at this aperture. It is noteworthy that this test was conducted with a production lens on a production camera, indicating that the film was precisely positioned and flat.
    This post actually proves the point.
    1) Zeiss went to Cosina because they recognise that with Zeiss QC, Cosina could build at lower cost quality lenses than they could.
    2) Have you ever seen a true (as opposed to badged) biogon design made for a camera with a mirrorbox i.e. biogons made for Contax CY? The wide-angle lenses designed by Zeiss for mirrobox cameras is the Distagon. The Hassies which use the biogons either don't have mirrors (purpose-built machines), or else the hassy needs to use the mirror lock-up function.
    Last edited by Keltzar; 18th December 2007 at 03:18 PM.

  11. #91
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    dover
    Posts
    1,070

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

    i think we are comparing things that are different.
    there is no common ground to set for them.
    we are comparing different price tag item for difference in quality.
    before i jump to the conclusion i think of this
    -----
    technical director of Canon/ Nikon may tell the CEO: we can make lens as good as them sir but may cost much more what we are doing now.
    then the marketing director says: we should not sir, build something sell better and earn more money sir.
    then CEO says: whatever guys, make sth get us more market share and money.
    -----
    To my conclusion, i think:

    well i bet that none of us dare to come with a conclusion that Canon/Nikon/... cannot make lens that are as good if they WANTed to.
    if the current Canon/Nikon lens are not as good, i think it's because of their strategies, their wants.
    If the whole world buy Canon/Nikon lens that priced the same as Leica, do u guys think that Ca/Ni will come up with kick ass lens at kick ass price?
    AND
    to be fair in comparison why don we compare like this:
    - pick a Canon/Nikon lens and a Leica/Zeiss lens that have same price tag. Which one better?

  12. #92

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

    somebody was talking about the Ripro-Nikkor 85mm f1.0 somewhere on CS a few days back. I've not seen anything from Leica or that matter Zeiss that can compare to that lens. Regardless manual or AF, camera body mountable lens.

    So it serves a case in point that Canon and Nikon are capable of building such lenses, but its just not a right mix with the company's economic wants and needs. As such, they have resorted to building 'sellable' lenses that appeal to the mass market at large.

  13. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,311

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

    If you think about real "achievements" in still-camera lens technology, Canon would be there. The fastest camera lens designed was the Canon RF 50mm f0.95 in the 1960s ... and the longest, their FL/FD-mount 3200mm f16 (I can't recall f-stop) which came with its own chair and took several people to move. All in the 1960s.

    But for the 50/0.95 ... it isn't even half as useable as today's EF 50/1L. Technology has made that difference.

    Nikon's new D3 allows an ISO equivalent setting of 25,600ISO ... not even film is that sensitive.

    It's all about technology ... just 10 years ago who would have thought about things like image stabalization, Diffractive Optics or even nano-MC coating which is what I saw in nikon's catalog last night. The latest thinking is that future cameras may not even have lenses but use a different way of projecting light onto media.

    So what's the difference between Leica/Zeiss and Canon/Nikon then? It all boils down to preference and choosing the right tool for your job.

  14. #94
    Senior Member Hacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    4,239

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

    M lenses appear to be remarkably distortion free, very even over the frame. I cannot say the same for all the WA L lenses that I own.

  15. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    sing
    Posts
    3,353

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

    Of course.

  16. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    3,530

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

    Ya i would love to own a leica someday ... but back to the topic if they outperform .... another question pop up instantly .

    Are they Practical ? LOL

  17. #97
    Senior Member zoossh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    8,725

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

    Quote Originally Posted by S11loop View Post
    Ya i would love to own a leica someday ... but back to the topic if they outperform .... another question pop up instantly .

    Are they Practical ? LOL
    if they are AF enabled, will be a practical issue to some users. isn't it?

  18. #98
    Senior Member Hacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cyberspace
    Posts
    4,239

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

    Quote Originally Posted by S11loop View Post
    Ya i would love to own a leica someday ... but back to the topic if they outperform .... another question pop up instantly .

    Are they Practical ? LOL
    You can easily carry 6-7 lenses in a small bag with a body. That's practical when travelling.

  19. #99

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hacker View Post
    You can easily carry 6-7 lenses in a small bag with a body. That's practical when travelling.
    Most people will not be able to afford 6 to 7 Leica/Zeiss lenses, especially the latest ones.

    For some, and that includes me, there is nothing like taking a shot with a Leica or Zeiss glass, and I sure would not mind having 6 or 7 of these lense with me when I travel.

  20. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    427

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

    Quote Originally Posted by RailGun View Post
    Leica's bokeh resembles gaussian blur and are tack sharp wide open (even more remarkable is how compact and light they are). The Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0 is phenomenal. First of all it's aspherical so you don't get spherical aberration when used wide open. And the stuff in focus is tack sharp wide open; meaning it can be used wide open, which is the whole point of an f/1 lens.

    But of course, theres no such thing as a free lunch and such phenomenal quality comes with a phenomenal price tag as well.
    I don't think the Noctilux f1 is aspherical; they use to make one but in f1.2. By comparision, the aspherical version is less than stella than the non-asph version, which is why the 1.2 design was replaced. Currently, the Summilux 50 Asph version is bleedingly sharp, but the bokeh is nothing to shout about.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •