"HERECTIC" Leica M user- are you?

[vincentbenoit]

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.

Voigtlander 28/3.5 'cause it's small, inexpensive and optically more than good enough.

Vincent

 

[sepiareverb]

I use a ZM 25, but the rest of the lenses on my M's are Leica. For my work I choose the lenses that render the images I want at their best. I shot many ZM lenses (21/2.8, 25, 28 & 50/2), the Rollei 80, the Pentax 43, the Konica 50/2. All but the 21 and 25 have fallen to a Leica equivalent (I'm currently shooting the Zeiss 21/2.8 for Contax G). I'm simply unable to get the same quality in full size 16x20 prints. Wide open or stopped down Leica lenses give better contrast and detail over a wider image field in my work. As I've stated elsewhere, nothing is more frustrating than a print that fails at size due to the physical shortcomings of the lens. Call me what you will, but in my work the Leica lenses are generally the better choice.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I use a ZM 25, but the rest of the lenses on my M's are Leica. For my work I choose the lenses that render the images I want at their best. I shot many ZM lenses (21/2.8, 25, 28 & 50/2), the Rollei 80, the Pentax 43, the Konica 50/2. All but the 21 and 25 have fallen to a Leica equivalent (I'm currently shooting the Zeiss 21/2.8 for Contax G). I'm simply unable to get the same quality in full size 16x20 prints. Wide open or stopped down Leica lenses give better contrast and detail over a wider image field in my work. As I've stated elsewhere, nothing is more frustrating than a print that fails at size due to the physical shortcomings of the lens. Call me what you will, but in my work the Leica lenses are generally the better choice.

We are still talking 35mm here, aren't we? The film is so grainy that it looks bad at anything bigger than 11x14 anyway, and I've not owned a top-line lens from Nikon or Olympus that wasn't sharper than the film. By top-line the high-end lenses in the line - primes and pro-level zooms, not the crappy plastic kit zooms. I shoot 35mm for speed, not quality. For that I use medium format. My Mamiya 645 will blow away ANYTHING you can get from a Leica (or any other 35mm for that matter). 35mm sucks for quality (I am picky though), and I have a hard time understanding people acting so silly over 35mm format lenses. A leica lens costs, what, $3000 for a 50mm Summicron? A $400 Mamiya lens on 120 film beats it anyday. not because the Summicon is a bad lens. It isn't and is probably a better lens (I know the Mamiya 80/1.9 I have isn't the best because my Hasselblad's 80 is sharper), but 35mm film just isn't capable of the detail resolution such a lens delivers.

 

[Uncle Bill]

My M3 came with a 50/2 Summicron and 90/4 Elmar which are great lenses, however dad also had a Canon 50/1.4 lens with the M-mount adapter and it is sweet glass. I also love the Voightlander Skopar 35/2.5 lens. I think If I am buying more lenses for my M mount kit, it would have to be voightlander. The bang for the buck is too good to overlook.

 

[sepiareverb]

We are still talking 35mm here, aren't we? The film is so grainy that it looks bad at anything bigger than 11x14 anyway, and I've not owned a top-line lens from Nikon or Olympus that wasn't sharper than the film. By top-line the high-end lenses in the line - primes and pro-level zooms, not the crappy plastic kit zooms.

If grain is bad, then 35mm will never be able to satisfy you in a 16x20 print. I've owned many of the top-line Nikon lenses, and in my experience they are bettered by the Zeiss ZM, Contax G and Leica. Even when using HP5 @ ISO 800 the difference is apparent.

I shoot 35mm for speed, not quality. For that I use medium format. My Mamiya 645 will blow away ANYTHING you can get from a Leica (or any other 35mm for that matter). 35mm sucks for quality (I am picky though), and I have a hard time understanding people acting so silly over 35mm format lenses.

I don't want to get sucked into this '120 is just better' argument again. If it works better for you hauling around all those big lenses, big body and a bunch of backs to get prints you like better great. I've seen better prints off my current lenses than anything else from roll film (Hasselblad, Pentax 67, Mamiya RZ, Fuji 645). If the argument is quality alone 8x10 wins hands down. For me the compromises 120 brings to the table in weight, depth of field and ergonomics negate the slightly larger negative. I shoot for quality regardless of format, and find that my current lenses work, period.

A leica lens costs, what, $3000 for a 50mm Summicron? A $400 Mamiya lens on 120 film beats it anyday. not because the Summicon is a bad lens. It isn't and is probably a better lens (I know the Mamiya 80/1.9 I have isn't the best because my Hasselblad's 80 is sharper), but 35mm film just isn't capable of the detail resolution such a lens delivers.

I don't know where you shop, but I certainly haven't paid $3000 for any lens (so no, I don't have a Noctilux ). Again, it comes down to what we shoot as to what lens will be better. When looking at full size prints side by side and one has crisper detail in the corners I will choose the lens that made the crisper print over the less crisp one, because many of my images make use of detail from corner to corner.

Believe me I know I'm not going to convert anyone, and would expect the same consideration in return. I'm using the lenses I'm using because they work for me. I'm not saying they must work for you. I'm just stating my opinion not stating facts that apply to everyone.

 

[sepiareverb]

Chris, you've said well the point so many of us are missing here. 35mm, while capable of some remarkable images in the right hands, is simply not a high resolution medium. Beyond Kodachrome 25 or Tech Pan Film on a tripod, grain and enlargement size limit the resolution of the film to below what most any decent lens can resolve (remember there is an enlarging lens between that Summicron and the print). Add in subject motion and wide open apertures with handheld cameras which is the use most of us put 35mm to, and this whole Leica lenses are better thing seems way overblown. IMHO, of course.

I think what you are missing is that the lens still matters. :bang:

We have a limited number of variables as photographers to create our pictures. Film, lens and developer/development are the first three in the equation.

 

[sepiareverb]

Yeah, the lens still matters. But if my lens resolves beyond the film, then the resolution is no longer relevant. Just about any modern lens can out resolve 35mm negative film. Project that film through an enlarging lens, blow the resulting image up eight times, and supposed advantages of a $3,000 lens over a $300 one devolve into folklore and imagination.

I can hardly believe you actually believe this. Look at a pair of 8x10 prints, same subject, same film, same handheld camera- one taken with the CV 75/2.5 and one taken with the 75 Summicron AA, at any aperture and tell me there is no difference between them. Blow those same negatives up to 1620 the differences are enormous. The notion that "just about any modern lens can out resolve 35mm negative film" is ludicrous. I have Photo 1 students who can see the difference in quality between different lenses- and believe me a Canon kit zoom lens can simply not deliver a print anywhere near as good as the CV 75 let alone the Summicron. Deluded? I think not.

We can't, of course, talk objectively about the "look" of a lens because it is completely subjective.

Good out. :angel:

 

[sepiareverb]

Ah I see, you are admitting there is a difference, but lowest common denominator rules. Even if most people don't care the Canon kit zoom will never be the equal of a Tri-Elmar, nor will the 50/1.8 Nikkor ever be the equal of the Summicron. More importantly to this discussion, the resulting prints will never be equal in legible detail. I speak from having used Nikons professionally for years and seeing countless students shoot with Canon kit zooms.

My point was that the differences are clear in the prints, not that most folks don't care. If one wants or needs to have detail visible in a large print the lens matters.

 

[kevin m]

...in the real world an EF 50/1.4 offers the same utility as a Summilux at a lot less money. After a certain quality point, there is no practical difference...

This is about all there is to picking out a lens. Find one that works for you and use it. Unless you're gainfully employed as a lens-tester, poring over images at 100% resolution looking for flaws is antithetical to decent photography.

 

[sepiareverb]

All I'm saying is that in the real world an EF 50/1.4 offers the same utility as a Summilux at a lot less money. After a certain quality point, there is no practical difference in the stuff we shoot at the size we usually print it.

Utility yes. They are both 50mm f 1.4 lenses. And from a utility standpoint the Canon may have an advantage for some users in that it can be completely automated. But as to print quality when making large prints there are clear differences between lenses. This is hard to dispute if you have done the prints. For a 2x3" jpeg viewed on screen? Not much difference, and if that is your target output fine, shoot whatever you want. I aim for 16x20" prints of my best images, where legible fine details are an important part of the picture. I have found over the last three years of working with Nikon, Contax and Leica cameras using Nikon, Zeiss, CV, Konica, Rollei and Leica lenses that I cannot make as legible a print from a negative made through a Nikon Ais or CV lens as I can with a Leica or Zeiss ZM or G. I'm simply saying that in my work I see the difference clearly. This isn't about brand or cachet this is about the print being as good as I can make it. I've had photographers question whether some of my prints are really from 35mm film. I work hard to make exceptional prints. One of the ways I get them to look so good is by choosing to work with lenses that perform exceptionally well. What is so hard to understand here? I'm not trying to make you switch, simply stating why I use the lenses I use over others that I've tried and no longer use.

I'm impressed first year students can tell the difference. Do your Photo 1 students generally use $3,000 lenses, though?

I didn't say they were using $3,000 lenses. My students can absolutely see the difference between the Canon kit zoom and the Canon prime lens or the Olympus prime lens others in the class are using. The differences between lenses are obvious to one who cares to look critically at prints.

 

[sepiareverb]

This is about all there is to picking out a lens. Find one that works for you and use it.

Exactly. And what works for one may not work for another.

Unless you're gainfully employed as a lens-tester, poring over images at 100% resolution looking for flaws is antithetical to decent photography.

One need not pore over a print at size to see the difference between a good lens and an exceptional one. When looking at a print of an apple tree in winter made with two lenses where one can see the fine branches clearly in one and less clearly in the other there is a real difference in impact between the two prints. But apparently film can't render something that delicate