how special of leica glass?

[literiter]

It's just a desire to own the fantasized equipment.

Hours and years will be spent analyzing the qualities of various lenses, debating the "bokeh", testing the "sharpness", but I think less than one in a million is even capable of coming close to exploiting the full quality of any brand name lens.

Call it for what it is, this whole Leica thing is a fetish. Nothing wrong with that. You might like leather corsets, rubber boots or cling wrap, the language of "Leica" is the same as any other otaku fetish group.

Most hard core Leicaphiles love the gear collecting more than the photos. More interesting than collecting stamps for sure, a big online support group to agree with you, and one can dress up in "photography" regalia such as fancy carry bags, vests, big hats and spend the day indulging your fetish with an expensive totem hanging around your neck. Maybe even snap a photo of the dog or a sleeping bum once in a while too.

Make's 'ya feel grand and superior, and all that, look down the nose at the clueless dweebs with their Canon digital point and shoots.....

There is a term to describe this desire. It is called "Gain Phenomenon". The term is used by marketing strategists and perhaps, psychologists.

You create a desire for an object by suggesting certain positive but very exclusive and undefinable qualities then make it difficult to get. Like raise the price. The product doesn't really have to live up to any claims. Leica does this very well, so far.

Cameras, Wine, Watches, Sound systems etc. and I suppose we all succumb to this, so I cannot be too smug. (Ahem)

 

[David Murphy]

Voilà qui est bien parlé!

lucky you! Leica lenses from the late 50's, early sixties, are my favourite glass by far.

i love Leica glass but then again there are so many other brands out there i can't wait to discover. i'm into the character of the glass, the feel of the focus, the weight balance on my camera.

to trash Leica is ridiculous. to say it is the only way to go is ridiculous. to each his own.

is Leica glass special? yes! but so are many others. the best thin to do is actually get your hands on different lenses and see what feels right and gives you the look you want. if you find a lens you love, you're likely to take more pictures...

i'd personally rather have one piece of glass that i'm mad about than waste my money on a few different bargain lenses that i'm not satisfied with. the best of both worlds, would be to fall in love with a bargain lens, and in this day and age it seems easy to do. you'll only ever know if you try.

 

[ampguy]

David is correct

David is correct

It's not a popular opinion, but David is correct. I'm not even sure why Zeiss bothered getting into RF lenses, you have Leica glass, and everything else is optically equivalent to $10 SLR glass on ebay.

Leica glass is special. You can count on exceptional quality, performance, and reliability for all their lenses. Of course they must be compared with other lenses made during their time, but I've found their reliability and performance superior overall to most other lens makers, particularly starting in the 1950's. Zeiss and Nikon are very close to Leica in overall performance, Canon and a few others are very good. Modern Voigtlander exhibits very good performance, *especially for the money*, but it's not quite up to Leica standards. The problem with Leica of course is that it's expensive -- very expensive sometimes. (Sorry if these opinions ruffle a few feathers)

Some experts content that the differences are not due to the basic optical technologies used (designs, coating, materials, etc.) which are available to all, but to the quality control that Leica exerts in manufacturing, such as going beyond the ordinary to align and collimate the final lens. This sort of work of course is very labor intensive and this is reflected in the price of Leica products.

 

[MCTuomey]

A lot of Leica dissing is really envy by those who cannot afford Leica, or have a misunderstanding of what Leica is by those who have no experience with the Leica system. One can do excellent work without Leica of course, but that's no reason to disrespect those who can purchase or are willing to sacrifice to afford the best. I certainly don't disdain those with full Leica kits -- my ambition is to join them -- I think they have it right.

You're welcome to your ambition and your appreciation for Leica gear, David. And I agree fully that disrespecting anyone for their kit is unreasonable. But your assertion that leica dissing is motivated by envy or misunderstanding is amateurish psycho-babble or pure generalization, respectively. In any case, there's no reason for you to articulate such disdain for those who hold opinions contrary to your own about leica value, especially when you insist others should "have no reason to disrespect" those who own such gear.

It's an age old reasoning all marketers love to use.

1. I have Leica gear. (premise)
2. Leica gear is the best. (premise)
3. I must be the best, too (conclusion)

The problem of course is premise #2. Which you asserted. Kool-aid, anyone?

Mike

 

[Keith]

Aside from the Noctilux there is no Leica lens on the market that creates much awe for me and IMO the poularity of most Leica glass is driven by the desire to own something from the top shelf ... which is where a lot of people like to shop if they feel they can afford to!

There's plenty of Japanese cars that will do anything a Porshe can do but people with the bucks will still choose the Porsche!

 

[David Murphy]

Keith. Thanks for helping me make my point. No other manufacturer has bested the Noctilux, not Zeiss, not Voigtlander, not Konica (RIP).

I don't get all bent-out-of-shape because someone else can afford a Noctilux. I want to be one of them. I admire their commitment to photography and the industriousness that led them to a position in life where they can afford it.

 

[sienarot]

It's an age old reasoning all marketers love to use.

1. I have Leica gear. (premise)
2. Leica gear is the best. (premise)
3. I must be the best, too (conclusion)

The problem of course is premise #2. Which you asserted. Kool-aid, anyone?

Mike

1. You must be the best
2. You drink Kool-aid
3. If I drink Kool-aid, I must be the best too!

Heck, I don't even need a camera! Just pennies a glass to be the best 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

Enough people think Leica is special that Leica is still in business.

Plenty of people attack Leica. So?

Yes, both Voigtländer and Zeiss make SERIOUS competitors (in lenses, not camera bodies -- ZI owners may disagree but Zeiss themselves aren't so sure).

You probably won't see a difference in the pics, except with a few exceptional lenses, and the same could be said of other manufacturers' lenses too.

You may or may not feel a difference: I have found Leicas very strong and able to stand up to very long-term use.

But many of the responses here are predictable: either 'don't waste your money on Leica' (often from non-Leica owners) or 'don't waste you money on anything else' (often from Leica owners trying to persuade themselves they have made wise investments).

Ignore them both.

Cheers,

R. (Leica user for almost 40 years; user of a mixture of Leica and non-Leica lenses on Leicas for almost as long).

 

[David Murphy]

As many you know I sell a lot here. Nothing, but nothing sells better than Leica. Even if it's priced a little high, it does not matter. It all sells. Even if it's old, even in bad condition (and described as such). It's a slam dunk to sell at a least market price if not somewhat above, and buyers rarely return it. I cannot say the same for any other photographic product.

I do not think this reflects "marketing", all camera companies have that. I think it reflects Leica's reputation -- not perfect, but pretty darn solid. No other camera company has had such an enduring and consistent commitment to photography and to the end user. Not Zeiss, not Rollei, not Kodak. Some have come close (e.g. Nikon). I believe this is one reason Leica maintains such a high stature and that its products consistently hold value.

 

[M. Valdemar]

I have plenty of Leica lenses and plenty of other lenses.

I have several 35mm Summiluxes. I usually end up sticking the 35mm f1.5 Canon on my camera when I go out.

Ditto, I also like the 35mm f1.8 Nikkor.

I'm not "dissing" Leica, I'm a realist. I use what I like. I don't believe that any particular brand has magical qualities.

I have a Canon f0.95 50mm which gives me results as good or better as a Noctilux.

It's not conjecture, I prefer the photos. I honestly don't think I could tell a Leica lens from another brand with any statistical accuracy in a blind test.

I don't think anyone else would accept that bet for serious money either.

 

[M. Valdemar]

RFF is essentially a Leica fetishist's forum. What do you expect?

A John will pay a girl he desires any amount of money, risk his career, and lose his head if she appeals to his fetish. Look at Elliot Spitzer. Imagine if he was in love with the Leica brand name....

As many you know I sell a lot here. Nothing, but nothing sells better than Leica. Even if it's priced a little high, it does not matter. It all sells. Even if it's old, even in bad condition (and described as such). It's a slam dunk to sell at a least market price if not somewhat above, and buyers rarely return it. I cannot say the same for any other photographic product.

I do not think this reflects "marketing", all camera companies have that. I think it reflects Leica's reputation -- not perfect, but pretty darn solid. No other camera company has had such an enduring and consistent commitment to photography and to the end user. Not Zeiss, not Rollei, not Kodak. Some have come close (e.g. Nikon). I believe this is one reason Leica maintains such a high stature and that its products consistently hold value.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Leica glass is special. You can count on exceptional quality, performance, and reliability for all their lenses. Of course they must be compared with other lenses made during their time, but I've found their reliability and performance superior overall to most other lens makers, particularly starting in the 1950's. Zeiss and Nikon are very close to Leica in overall performance, Canon and a few others are very good. Modern Voigtlander exhibits very good performance, *especially for the money*, but it's not quite up to Leica standards. The problem with Leica of course is that it's expensive -- very expensive sometimes. (Sorry if these opinions ruffle a few feathers)

Some experts content that the differences are not due to the basic optical technologies used (designs, coating, materials, etc.) which are available to all, but to the quality control that Leica exerts in manufacturing, such as going beyond the ordinary to align and collimate the final lens. This sort of work of course is very labor intensive and this is reflected in the price of Leica products.

I agree totally with David, and just by own experience I can state that the Leitz lenses are most sharp and best rendering colors and contrast. I dare even say that some of their lenses made in the 50-ties can uphold against modern VC glass for instance. Leitz must have it solely from quality, and cannot just uphold/raise high prices; remember they are struggling decennia to keep things going. If you pay for a good Leitz lens, you actually pay also for those lenses that didn't make the high standard tests.

 

[David Murphy]

Maybe I'm not a practical photographer, but I just ripped through about 10 rolls of film in Paris in two days with a Leica IIIc. The digital camera we had with us died a few minutes into the holiday. I'm sure a K1000 would have done almost as well, but it looks like hell compared to a IIIc and it doesn't take the Canon 35/2, Summitar, or the CV 15/4.5 (etc.).

 

[CharlesBoyer]

I'm going to guess from your grammar you're Asian or a native Asian language speaker.

You want these lenses for the same reason my Japanese wife is obsessed with Louis Vuitton bags, which are just overpriced plastic.

They have done their marketing extremely well, plus the high price creates a situation where you think "something HAS to be better about them", and in terms of societal status/face, you want badly to own them.

This desire transcends reason and intellect, and those who sell luxury goods understand your mentality VERY well.

Actually, I just wanted to get X-RAY's opinion on the different optics he was referring to. I don't know too much about RF lenses. I prefer to do my research first and weigh that against what I look for in a lens. Glad to see my question spawned so many responses. Thanks Valdemar. 😀

 

[J J Kapsberger]

A lot of Leica dissing is really envy by those who cannot afford Leica, or have a misunderstanding of what Leica is by those who have no experience with the Leica system...

Yes, and by many who've chosen, for whatever reason, not to buy Leica and are now making a bunch of noise to drown out their cognitive dissonance.

Monster, if you like to shoot wide-open or near to wide-open and demand the best in performance, yes, there is something special about Leica lenses--they tend to be the very best at those settings.

 

[oscroft]

But many of the responses here are predictable: either 'don't waste your money on Leica' (often from non-Leica owners) or 'don't waste you money on anything else' (often from Leica owners trying to persuade themselves they have made wise investments).

Ignore them both.

Well said. And now it's time to ignore this thread.

 

[ully]

Nothing special.

 

[Patman]

Sorry man, but thats just pure bullcrap. You have obviously not tried any of the Zeiss lenses.

Well that's a lot of bull! I have 5 lenses I purchased in the late 50's, they still work perfectly and have never been serviced in any way, and all give me exceptional image quality. Last year I purchased an M8 because I could use these lenses with it but purchased one new lense, a Zeiss 21mm Biogon and if this is an example of Zeiss quality it's a pretty poor one. All of my 50's lenses have proved to be far superior. I also own lots of Nikon glass I use on a D200 and a Kodak DCS Pro 14 and none of these lenses or cameras perform or are optically equal to my M3, also purchased new in 1958 and has never needed any service in any way and still looks as good as the day I bought it or my M8. I have been shooting photos since the 50's and have no fetishes just know quality. I hear lots of bull from those who don't own Leica glass and it's usually from those who can't afford so they try and talk themselves out of it, to compare you have too own and shoot and witness the exceptional images first hand. I shot a parade earlier this year for a local paper I used my M8 and my D200. I shot 100 shots with the NIkon because of the long lens and about 50 with the M8 with a 35mm lens. All of the Leica images were perfect and used, about 6 of the Nikon images were usable, pretty awesome percentage don't you think. PS 35mm Leica lens over 50 years old, Nikon lens one year and cost me almost $2000.

 

[WoolenMammoth]

It was probably left in a hot car in the summer. That will take its toll on optical cement. That's exactly how you separate elements, with application of mild heat. I never said that Leica lenses were impervious to abuse.

this qualifies as abuse? geesh. I hate to break it to some of you white gloves guys, but this is just USE and average USE at that. I have had positively no choice but to leave an array of vintage cameras locked in a car in the low desert for weeks at a time over several points in my career and have never had anything as extreme as lens seperation or frankly, ANYTHING happen to any lens because of heat.

I am sure in a labratory, writing a warranty, this seems like a real bad idea, but if you shoot in the desert, its really just unavoidable. How many lens seperation cases are coming back from Iraq, or have in the last five years. Because you know, there are like NO cameras there...

Ive never had any troubles with any of my leica lenses in heat, but if leica quality can not stand up to heat exposure in a car, its kinda not really quality worth bragging about imo. How many of Larry Burrows or Henri Huets lenses seperated in Vietnam before they died? Neither of them did tons and tons of work in the north and the continental hotel did not have air conditioning...

Im sorry, that statement is just a little silly. It is common knowledge that a large batch of canadian lenses seperate. Its not because of design...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Well that's a lot of bull! I have 5 lenses I purchased in the late 50's, they still work perfectly and have never been serviced in any way, and all give me exceptional image quality. Last year I purchased an M8 because I could use these lenses with it but purchased one new lense, a Zeiss 21mm Biogon and if this is an example of Zeiss quality it's a pretty poor one. All of my 50's lenses have proved to be far superior. I also own lots of Nikon glass I use on a D200 and a Kodak DCS Pro 14 and none of these lenses or cameras perform or are optically equal to my M3, also purchased new in 1958 and has never needed any service in any way and still looks as good as the day I bought it or my M8. I have been shooting photos since the 50's and have no fetishes just know quality. I hear lots of bull from those who don't own Leica glass and it's usually from those who can't afford so they try and talk themselves out of it, to compare you have too own and shoot and witness the exceptional images first hand. I shot a parade earlier this year for a local paper I used my M8 and my D200. I shot 100 shots with the NIkon because of the long lens and about 50 with the M8 with a 35mm lens. All of the Leica images were perfect and used, about 6 of the Nikon images were usable, pretty awesome percentage don't you think. PS 35mm Leica lens over 50 years old, Nikon lens one year and cost me almost $2000.

If you expect a 21mm lens to be as sharp as a 35, you're in for major disappointment no matter what brand you get. Compare a Leica 21 against a Leica 35. The 21 will suck in comparison. Try the Leica 21 against a Nikon 35. Same result, the 21 won't be as good.

If you got a lot of unusable images with your Nikon, I'd suggest you practice your technique rather than blaming the camera. long lenses are harder to use no matter what brand camera you use.