how special of leica glass?

Patman said:
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
Click to expand...

well, the guy you are arguing with (erik) most assuredly isnt one of those people.

I own about 15 leica lenses of varying vintages and would put my zm sonnar up to or above just about any one of them. There has been more than one person out there who sold a ZM planar because it was "too sharp". Perhaps one needs to use both leica and zeiss glass to form a grounded opinion either way...
 
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth said:
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...
Click to expand...

Heat might not hurt mechanical cameras and lenses, but modern Leicas all have meters. Electronics don't like heat. I ruined a Sekonic handheld meter several years ago by leaving it in a car in Texas for a couple hours. Totally dead. I never leave my gear in a hot car, ever. If its hot outside, I put the bag on my shoulder and carry it when I leave the car.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've been using long lenses longer than you are years old and know quite well how to handle them but the Nikon auto focus sucks and the lens simply just doesn't perform. I also understand that the Leica, sorry don't own one yet but will soon, is far superior to most glass out there at any mm.
 
Patman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lovely!

Well, Dad I've got Leica glass. And I can afford more of it. (Lots of us can afford it) But money cannot buy talent or taste, just tools.

When I compare Leica glass to anything else my results are like everyone else's, it's just good glass.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
Electronics don't like heat.
Click to expand...

chris, this a bad generalization. The one stress factor that *all* electronic components are tested against is heat. When speaking of the kind of heat inside a car sitting in noon sun in the low desert, you really dont have to worry about the electronic components at all. A battery is going to leak before a diode melts. hundreds of degrees before, actually...
 
leicasniper said:
Patman said:
I've been using long lenses longer than you are years old and know quite well how to handle them but the Nikon auto focus sucks and the lens simply just doesn't perform."

Hmmm. Well, most of the professional images shot over the last 30 years have been shot with Nikons or Canons. Most of those sucky images in NatGeo magazine. Those many Pulitzer Prize images.

While I shoot Canons rather than Nikons professionally, I can assure you that both systems lenses "perform." I can afford to shoot anything I want to, and I actually own several Leicas and lenses, and I shoot Canon. Apparently most of us just aren't astute enough to know our cameras and lenses don't "perform."
Click to expand...
I believe I read here that most professionals don't use Leica's because the glass is too expensive and most of the images you see posted are taken with long lenses on the Canon's and Nikons. Tell me how many 50 year old Canon and Nikon's are you using with 50 year old lenses trying too play catch up and how many of these cameras or lens have never been in for repair or adjustment. Prize winning photos are not picked for image quality but for the drama portraided in them and photos in printed media don't reflect image quality because offset printing just can't duplicate the quality of a photo print. I print my own images, did so with film and now digital, that is where I make the comparisome. PS. Good Night my friends, this old man is going to sleep.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth said:
chris, this a bad generalization. The one stress factor that *all* electronic components are tested against is heat. When speaking of the kind of heat inside a car sitting in noon sun in the low desert, you really dont have to worry about the electronic components at all. A battery is going to leak before a diode melts. hundreds of degrees before, actually...
Click to expand...

My meter was a Sekonic L-398, one of the selenium celled incident meters. No battery to melt, but the meter was and remains 8 yrs later, dead as can be. I think you got lucky! I've known several others (and Leicasniper just chimed in as well) who lost cameras in Texas and New Mexico by leaving them in closed up cars. I never lived in a low-desert area but the high deserts of northern New Mexico get HOT in the summer and I wouldn't have risked my equipment in the car when I lived in Santa Fe.
 
this is probably getting way off topic, but when you select electronic components for production, one of the primary avenues manufacturers use to sort resistors, capacitors and active components is heat. Before diodes were used to rectify AC power in the 50's, selenium was used. Rectifiers get hot... Im sure that you got a busted meter but if heat set it off, it was at the end of its life cycle, thats all. Electronic components are by design, able to handle heat. After all, the resistors and caps in your meter are no different than the components in the electronics in your car itself. Your car starts in the heat, right? Not suggesting that you are necessarily wrong but that your generalization is far to general, most circuit boards get far hotter and the ambient temperature inside the electronic enclosures is much higher than you would guess. Leaving stuff in a 130 degree car is really not something you should think twice about.
 
I've noticed that no one has challenged Darren's (JJKapsberger) comments on wide open performance of Leica's best optics. I'll suggest that there is no better 50mm/1.4 on the market with respect to wide open performance in resolution and contrast all the way to the corners of the frame than the current Aspheric Leica, none, period. That same conclusion is demonstrably true for the 28/2 Asph, the 35/2 Asph, the 75/2 Apo and the 90/2 Apo, etc. No one else's prime lenses can hold a candle to those Leica optics. Now, if that doesn't matter to you, fine. But, there is a difference.
 
Last edited:
ErikFive said:
Well guess im qualified for an opinion since I only have Leica glass incl the Noctilux which probably is the ultimate Leica masturbation lens these days. Either your 21 is faulty or you dont like it cause it has a modern look unlike all your Leica glass. I have owned the Zeiss 21 myself and I found it a great performer.
Your Nikon example probably just shows that you dont know your Nikon camera well enough. You should be able to take the same pics with it as the M8.
Click to expand...
What are you comparing it too? If you call that quality glass then you don't know a good image when you see it. PS Use the same Nikon glass on my Kodak and it does a better job, same glass different camera.
 
Patman said:
What are you comparing it too? If you call that quality glass then you don't know a good image when you see it. PS Use the same Nikon glass on my Kodak and it does a better job, same glass different camera.
Click to expand...

He's saying maybe you got a bad example of the Zeiss lens. :( If I were you I'd exchange it at the store for another if it was really bad and everyone else is saying it should be good. Or send it to Zeiss for repair.
 
well, I guess it was bound to come to this on the internet. someone slagging zeiss optics as being junk because it doesnt say leica on the barrel. can some of you guys please check your head. zeiss is not tamron...
 
leicasniper said:
Ron, what you say might be true about the Leica lenses. But I've never had a client or gallery goer turn to me and say, "My God, Jim, that EF 50/1.4 is unacceptably soft in the corners and look at that MTF, only .58 at 1.4 instead of .60 like the Summilux!

In the real world it just doesn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

Why then spend the money on the EF 50/1.4 if it doesn't make a difference? Why not use a Quantaray or a Centon. Heck, even a glass ash tray might just be good enough - and talk about cheap! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
leicasniper said:
But beyond a certain quality level, the real world differences in the images produced are not significant.
Click to expand...

Speaking for yourself, of course. I assume you wouldn't presume to tell someone else what is and what is not a significant difference. That would suggest... arrogance, immodesty, perhaps superiority? But of course, only users of Leica lenses exhibit those traits.
 
Quantaray lenses are Sigmas. House brand of Ritz and identical to Sigma.

Some are very good. Have you tried one?

visiondr said:
Why then spend the money on the EF 50/1.4 if it
doesn't make a difference? Why not use a Quantaray or a Centon. Heck, even a glass ash tray might just be good enough - and talk about cheap! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
I have three 35mm lenses that I use regularly ... 35mm Nokton, 35mm Hexanon f2 and a 35mm f2 Zuiko that I use on my OM-2. They all perform way beyond my personal capabilities to perceive any real difference in the results they produce so I would be loathe to spend the readies on a Leica 35mm ... Summicron or Summilux! I also would not buy a Rolex to tell time but others certainly do obviously otherwise Rolex would not be in bussiness ... so if that's their bag good luck to them!

As for Ampguy's comment that any optic that isn't Leica might as well be $10.00 ebay SLR glass ... I'm amazed that he has so much confidence in lenses built by a company that apparently can't manufacture a camera with a reliable advance mechanism! :p
 
I have Rolexes and I like them as objects......but any $6 Quartz watch will keep far more accurate time than the most expensive mechanical Rolex.

Keith said:
I have three 35mm lenses that I use regularly ... 35mm Nokton, 35mm Hexanon f2 and a 35mm f2 Zuiko that I use on my OM-2. They all perform way beyond my personal capabilities to perceive any real difference in the results they produce so I would be loathe to spend the readies on a Leica 35mm ... Summicron or Summilux! I also would not buy a Rolex to tell time but others certainly do obviously otherwise Rolex would not be in bussiness ... so if that's their bag good luck to them!

As for Ampguy's comment that any optic that isn't Leica might as well be $10.00 ebay SLR glass ... I'm amazed that he has so much confidence in lenses built by a company that apparently can't manufacture a camera with a reliable advance mechanism! :p
Click to expand...
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not to sound insulting, nor to claim I am an expert. I am also not a famous artist. But to compare short lenses to long lenses already sounds suspect. And a ratio you mention would maybe work with Leica against Sun lenses, but I think not. That ratio has to be technique (or the lack thereof). Sorry.
 
M. Valdemar said:
I have Rolexes and I like them as objects......but any $6 Quartz watch will keep far more accurate time than the most expensive mechanical Rolex.
Click to expand...

I supect now and then Leica lenses are often bought as 'objects' also!

That said the Noctilux has always impressed me as being a very unique lens. It's exlusive yes ... but that's to do with the price which tends to put it out of the immagination of most people who would far rather spend their dollars on some other horribly expensive photographic item ... like the M8 maybe! :p

I'm damned if I'd ever spend $6000 on an optic but I do believe that this particular lens may just justify it's price tag and is probably Leicas shining light when you talk about engineering quality and optical achievment ... the rest I can take or leave!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom