"HERECTIC" Leica M user- are you?

M

M2user

Member
Local time
8:10 PM
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
31
I admit that I am not a "purist" and that I enjoy using NON-Leitz glass on my M2.There are so many lenses in LTM and M-Bayonet mount that are not made by Leitz that can be mounted and used on Leica M cameras and give superb results.Added to that many of these lenses are "easier on the pocket" and provide £ for £ (or $ for $) better value for money.
Again why use only Leitz glass ?
It's like a person only trying oranges and saying they are the best fruit,without trying apples,pears,plums,grapes.Limiting ones choice to only Leica lenses without trying other makers lenses is exactly the same.You need to try as many as you can then make your decision and you will be surprised how good some NON- Leitz glass performs.
Come on forum members , let others know which NON- Leitz glass you use with your LEICA M and let us know why you have chosen this NON-Leitz glass to use on your LEICA M camera.
 
Over the last 30+ years I've tried samples from most of the non-Leica manufacturers of lenses available for screw and M. I completely agree that many are superb and that some can do things that Leica lenses cannot. But I'd also suggest that when it comes to absolute technical quality, (a) later lenses are mostly better and (b) you get what you pay for. The latter accounts for the price of the Zeiss 15/2.8, for example...

Cheers,

R.
 
The closest I have gotten to a non-Leitz lens is my Minolta Rokkor-M 28/2.8. That isn't saying much, though, as it's matched with only two other lenses (a 50/2 DR and a 90/2.8 Elmarit).
 
Ironic really, because the first time I ever showed an interest in RF's was when I was chatting with a store clerk & he made the statement "what makes Leica so special is the glass" Since joining RFF I have seen pretty much the opposite. Alot of people shoot Leica bodies with other lenses. As far as SM lenses go, for the $$ I think Canon lenses are hard to beat. I read even Winogrand used 28mm Canon glass on his Leica M. From what I have read & seen here is that if I was going to purchase M mount lenses I would go with ZI. The only Leica glass that really impresses me is the Noctilux.
 
Not heretic at all. One of the major strengths of the LTM/M mount is compatibility. Next to it, only M42 allows to use so many different kinds of lenses. Many famous photographers (including HCB, DDD, and others) have used non-Leica lenses on Leica bodies.

Check my "Kits" link in the signature if you are interested what I currently use ...

Best,

Roland.
 
I've used many different lenses by different manufacturers.
Some of my favorites have been the CV 28/35 and 35 UC Hexanon (though it is about to be replaced by a 35 v.3 summicron.

I'm also using a 50/1.4 ltm Nikkor. Really just getting used to it, but I think I like it.

I really have trouble understanding why people would refuse to use lenses by other makers. At one point, I came close to doing away with all of my Leica glass, but it looks like I'll have at least one or two in the kit.
 
I don't think that qualifies you as a heretic. Now if you used your M2 as a hammer, that might begin to get you there....
 
The truth is in the early years the Leica camera were great and the glass SUCKED! Early on many photographers used Leica camera bodies and third party glass. I think some of Leitz early lens were copies of other manufacturers design and formulas.
 
Not heresy at all, as others pointed out one of the strength of the M system is the possibility to use various brand of glass from the last, what, century or so? :D

I use a CV 15, the reason being very evident, there is no Leica comparable (excluding the WATE) and even considering the WATE the size, weight & of course price of the CV - plus the great IQ - made it a no brainer for me. Also, I am experimenting lately with a Canon 50 mm f1.4 which I am liking very much as well.

All the rest is Leica (2.8/24 ASPH, 2/35 v. IV, 50 Lux, Nocti, 75 Lux, 90 pre-ASPH)
 
Last edited:
two out of my four lenses compatible with the m2 are not leitz.
Both a 50/1.2 and a 21mm would cost me a fortune if i would go for leitz.
 
Gipsy said:
The truth is in the early years the Leica camera were great and the glass SUCKED! Early on many photographers used Leica camera bodies and third party glass. I think some of Leitz early lens were copies of other manufacturers design and formulas.
Click to expand...

That's true, it was only in the postwar period that Leica lenses became as good as Zeiss and Schneider. Even in the 50's many leica uses used Nikon and Canon lenses. The Elmar is a copy of the Zeiss Tessar.
 
Hcb

Hcb

ferider said:
Not heretic at all. One of the major strengths of the LTM/M mount is compatibility. Next to it, only M42 allows to use so many different kinds of lenses. Many famous photographers (including HCB, DDD, and others) have used non-Leica lenses on Leica bodies.

Check my "Kits" link in the signature if you are interested what I currently use ...

Best,

Roland.
Click to expand...

Just for the records,- can you give an example for HCB?
best regs Wolfhard
 
a professsional photojournalist might want to carry industrial caliber glass and mounts, which in Leicadom means Leica lenses.
 
35mmdelux said:
a professsional photojournalist might want to carry industrial caliber glass and mounts, which in Leicadom means Leica lenses.
Click to expand...

Considering that 95% of photojournalists use either Nikon or Canon, I'd say that those two Japanese makers are the industrial caliber glass and mounts.

Leica hasn't been a serious professional camera since the Nikon F came out in 1959 and took away most of Leica's customers. I know the worshippers will start shrieking the names of people like HCB and Salgado. They represent a handful among the tens of thousands of professional photojournalists in the world. Most today use either Canon or Nikon digital SLRs.
 
35mmdelux said:
a professsional photojournalist might want to carry industrial caliber glass and mounts, which in Leicadom means Leica lenses.
Click to expand...

But never other lenses? Or occasionally other lenses? Or maybe quite often other lenses? And sometimes even Leica lenses are not that 'industrial' to judge from some of the posts on these forums...
 
Leica glass is too expensive for me. In Japan it goes from $500 used up to $3000 new.

The only Leica lenses I have are the 40 that came w/my CL and a Summar 50. The regular 50 I use is a Nikkor-H.C. It's LTM so I can use it with my P, IIIf, M3 & CL.
 
I been a heretic since 1978.
that is when I sold my Leica IIIc's Summarit and replaced it with a 50mm Nikkor LTM lens.

30 years later and I still think it was a good move on my part.
 
I use a CV 21mm and, even more occasionally, a CV 12mm. In both cases it's because I did not need such wide lenses very often and could not justify the price of Leica ultrawide lenses. (And, of course, they don't make a 12mm.) I owned a CV 50mm f/2 collapsible for a while but was not too happy with the optical quality, and it was not appreciably smaller than my 50mm Summicron.

I think the CV 21mm is very good considering the low price. On the other hand, the fact that I am using an M8 more these days means I may depend more on that focal length in the future. I still have not brought myself to buying a Leica 21mm, though.

Remember when Leica apologized to us early M8 users with the 30% lens discount? I used mine to get a 75mm Summicron. Maybe I should have gotten the 21mm instead. I'd probably use it more often. If they could apologize again that way on the three-year anniversary of the M8's introduction, and every few years thereafter, that would keep our loyalty.
 
My glass is split between the modern carl zeiss lenses and leica glass. Both give me phenomenal results. I can never fault the gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom