Nikon Lens vs Leica Lens

[mportrait]

Hi.
Can any Leica 35mm user comment on the quality of the two lens? Is leica really better since it is more expensive?

[ahbeng]

Nikon -> Lexus
Leica -> BMW

[icebooke]

There is a substantial difference between the two lenses only if you actually harness the differences. A 50/1.4 AFD or 50/1.8AFD cannot be compared to a Summicron 50/f2 (I own all three currently). Slides like Velvia 100F taken by the Summicron are distinctively sharper than both Nikkors - provided you know how and what you are looking for. If you print at 4R and expect to tell the difference (I once had someone tell me "Oh, I can't tell the difference between your lens and mine" at 4R sized prints!) then you will only earn my disdain. If you are serious about making large prints from comparable lenses, then you will understand what the differences are. Anyway, the two systems (note: I said systems,not lenses) are different tools for different purposes and users. Its pointless to ask which is sharper. It is like asking which knife is sharper - your butcher's cleaver or my sushi knife. Different tools! If you need both, get them. If you need only one, build up that one system. Anyhow, if you really wish to know, they may appear the same to most people, but if you really utilized and harnessed the systems to their maximal potential, then the value of both would have some meaning for you. I couldn't possibly get a large percentage of sharp images on my Leica lenses when taking sports or nature - they are manual focus! But Nikon lenses paired up with a good autofocus system can produce outstanding results. Similarly, I just cannot get the same kind of portraits with my Nikon that I can with the Leica. The process of creating the image and the lenses involved are completely different.

Please use my reply here only as one opinion out of many. There are others here who will give you differing opinions, but by all means, decide what you think helps you best based on what you read. Its certainly much cheaper than actually buying everything and testing them out yourself.

[2100]

icebrooke.....summicron 50/2, very sharp even wide open right? Usually most of these German stuff really sharp wide open, i heard.

[sykestang]

Originally Posted by icebooke There is a substantial difference between the two lenses only if you actually harness the differences. A 50/1.4 AFD or 50/1.8AFD cannot be compared to a Summicron 50/f2 (I own all three currently). Slides like Velvia 100F taken by the Summicron are distinctively sharper than both Nikkors - provided you know how and what you are looking for. If you print at 4R and expect to tell the difference (I once had someone tell me "Oh, I can't tell the difference between your lens and mine" at 4R sized prints!) then you will only earn my disdain. If you are serious about making large prints from comparable lenses, then you will understand what the differences are. Anyway, the two systems (note: I said systems,not lenses) are different tools for different purposes and users. Its pointless to ask which is sharper. It is like asking which knife is sharper - your butcher's cleaver or my sushi knife. Different tools! If you need both, get them. If you need only one, build up that one system. Anyhow, if you really wish to know, they may appear the same to most people, but if you really utilized and harnessed the systems to their maximal potential, then the value of both would have some meaning for you. I couldn't possibly get a large percentage of sharp images on my Leica lenses when taking sports or nature - they are manual focus! But Nikon lenses paired up with a good autofocus system can produce outstanding results. Similarly, I just cannot get the same kind of portraits with my Nikon that I can with the Leica. The process of creating the image and the lenses involved are completely different. Please use my reply here only as one opinion out of many. There are others here who will give you differing opinions, but by all means, decide what you think helps you best based on what you read. Its certainly much cheaper than actually buying everything and testing them out yourself.

Have you tried the Voigtlander 50/f1.5 (dbl) Aspherical Nokton. I used to own of this and was told by fellow voigtlander/leica rangefinders users that this lens produces same or if not better images than the Leica Summicron 50/f2. Guess what, it is only 1/3 of the price as compared to the Summicron.

Just for discussion, no offense...

[icebooke]

The voightlander lenses are of roughly equal quality as the Leicas, which makes it remarkable because they do not have the kind of QC checks that Leica has.

The price of the lenses have little bearing on the quality. My humble $120 second-hand Nikkor 50/1.8AFD produces images with a quality that exceeds that of almost all lenses out there on the market. The Voightlander system is one that is a very viable alternative to the Leicas, and I highly recommend it.

Almost all Leica lenses are manufactured according to their design, but they check every single piece, and will pick only a certain percentage of the pieces made, and therfore only about 5-10% of the best pieces will be labelled and sold as Leicas. The rest are resold or just make their way into other markets. That is why the cost is so high. You pay for the best piece among quite a few. The other lens makers seldom use this method of selecting lenses, they merely sample, say 10-12% of a batch of lenses and as long as most are alright, the whole lot is sold. That is why for some lenses you would get a large variation in samples.

Anyway there are different ways of making a business, and I think Hasselblad equipment go through a similar process as Leicas. In manufacturing terms, it is a good way to ensure quality, but it is economically inefficient. And also not terribly environmentally friendly. But I still think it's up to the user to pick his equipment based on needs and budget, more than anything else.

[marcwang]

Not to be controversial here .... but here are some of my thoughts.

On 35mm film, I would think the difference in sharpness between Nikkor's sharpest and a Leica would be barely distinguishable, not unless an enlargement of A2 proportions is being reached. And by A2 size, grain would become an issue.... more than lens sharpness.

Perhaps on medium format, lens sharpness is more critical. I'm not talking about other aspects such as bokeh, colour renditioning, where I would definitely agree that Leicas would be superior

If sharpness is your only issue, the difference in pricing would be totally unjustifiable.

Am I right to say that ?

[icebooke]

"If sharpness is your only issue, the difference in pricing would be totally unjustifiable.

Am I right to say that ?"

As I said, depending on what you want and what youn can or are willing to afford. There is always a demand out there for overpriced commodities despite the fact that they have only a marginally small difference in quality over the less expensive ones. Even within the same brand! That's how they make a living out of people's desire for some infinitesimal increase in quality. My 50cents penknife can cut paper just as well as some fancy designer metallic shaft titanium blade, but hey, just because I can't afford it doesn't mean its "unjustifiable". I just get on with what I have.

I think it's important not to say that just because I can't afford something, it means its bad or not right. Smells of the green-eyed monster...

[student]

I don't use Nikon, but Canon and Leica in both M & R.

Frankly I think any decent modern lenses have qualities that far exceed the photographic skills of most average photographers.

I feel that the difference is a matter of preference.

However there is one thing that a leica lens is better, I think. And that is the nature of its construction, being mounted in metal instead of plastic.

[canturn]

Originally Posted by marcwang Not to be controversial here .... but here are some of my thoughts. On 35mm film, I would think the difference in sharpness between Nikkor's sharpest and a Leica would be barely distinguishable, not unless an enlargement of A2 proportions is being reached. And by A2 size, grain would become an issue.... more than lens sharpness. Perhaps on medium format, lens sharpness is more critical. I'm not talking about other aspects such as bokeh, colour renditioning, where I would definitely agree that Leicas would be superior If sharpness is your only issue, the difference in pricing would be totally unjustifiable. Am I right to say that ?

Try doing darkroom printing, and u'll know why leicas are still so sought after. I've friends who still stand by older lenses from Leica that doesn't have the kind of blistering sharpness of the Nikon ED glass or the Canon L. The fact is, Leica lenses can produce the kind of feel, tonality, shadow details, as well as the 3D-like texture.

I was very resistant about getting Leicas, and only after I've borrowed one, shoot a few rolls, and printed them in the darkroom to appreciate these glass and eventually got my hands on the M system and 3 lenses.

Medium format will beat any Leica hands down in terms of sharpness and contrast even at 8R enlargement. It reached a point whereby sharpness ain't everything, esp in b&w. When I was in Hong Kong, I shoot the same scene from a Leica and Mamiya 7 enlarged to 11x14. Yes, Mamiya 7 being 6x7 would be sharper and more contrasty, but the Leica would still give a more pleasing overall picture. How many folks here would position their eyes less than 3 cm away from a picture?

Frankly, most modern lenses these days can be sharp....sharpness however, ain't everything, sometimes

[student]

There was a very interesting story about the "3-D" effect of Leica lenses. Some Leica "experts" had more or less verified that the essence of this story was true.

There was a time when without question, Zeiss reigned supreme. Leitz simply could not match the technology of Zeiss then. So a design was made to purposely "blur" out the periphery of the lens field and ensure that the centre was sharp. And thus the 3-D effect was born!

I not only use Leica lenses, but also a Leitz Focomat V35 with a black & white variable contrast printing module. Maybe my eyes are not discerning enough, but I think for modern Leica lenses, I find little difference between my L-lenses and Leica lenses.

The older Leica lenses are of course different!