Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
It's stopped raining........so I'm going out to tke some shots...with the J8 ! 
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I agree that the Noctilux is a nice lens, but honestly, what makes it worth $6500? That's a lot of money for a manual focus 50mm lens, no matter how well it's made. As a matter of fact, the price borders on sheer insanity.
It's not wildly sharp wide open. Flair is well controlled. I agree it's fast. Stopped down a little, it's an excellent lens, but not better than most other good 50mm lenses.
Do you think that if you have one, that your photos will magically improve somehow? That someone will say "GOOD LORD, those pictures DOUBTLESSLY HAVE BEEN MADE WITH A SUPERIOR LENS"? "The MAN WHO OWNS THAT LENS CERTAINLY HAS SUPERIOR TASTE"?
Do you feel that other photographers or girls will be impressed if they see you with one?
Viewed sanely and without prejudice, do you really think these photos are VASTLY superior to results from other lenses? Could you instantly pick out a Noctilux shot?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/noctilux/pool/
I certainly wouldn't refuse one if given to me, but no way on earth could I see myself paying anywhere near retail for one in the hope it will "improve" my photography.
And it's not envy or "jealousy". I have many Leitz lenses and other photographic items worth far more than the Noctilux and I honestly could pay cash today for almost any photographic object I desired.
It's not wildly sharp wide open. Flair is well controlled. I agree it's fast. Stopped down a little, it's an excellent lens, but not better than most other good 50mm lenses.
Do you think that if you have one, that your photos will magically improve somehow? That someone will say "GOOD LORD, those pictures DOUBTLESSLY HAVE BEEN MADE WITH A SUPERIOR LENS"? "The MAN WHO OWNS THAT LENS CERTAINLY HAS SUPERIOR TASTE"?
Do you feel that other photographers or girls will be impressed if they see you with one?
Viewed sanely and without prejudice, do you really think these photos are VASTLY superior to results from other lenses? Could you instantly pick out a Noctilux shot?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/noctilux/pool/
I certainly wouldn't refuse one if given to me, but no way on earth could I see myself paying anywhere near retail for one in the hope it will "improve" my photography.
And it's not envy or "jealousy". I have many Leitz lenses and other photographic items worth far more than the Noctilux and I honestly could pay cash today for almost any photographic object I desired.
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!
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!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I'm pretty happy with my 1.2 Canon to be honest but I can see it's shortcomings ... mind you at $300.00 they're insignificant when you consider that I'd be struggling to tell the difference between a good Canon shot and a Noctilux shot. Maybe it is just the flare resistance that gives it an edge because if it is soft wide open so's my Canon ... therefore theoretically I'd be coughing up an extra $6200.00 to avoid flare under certain conditions ... nahh!
It would be nice to rent a Noctilux for a week though to see what all the fuss is about!
It would be nice to rent a Noctilux for a week though to see what all the fuss is about!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well in that case your criticism is somewhat absurd (which is why I am answering to it). What makes those Leitz lenses and other photographic items "worth" it for you? To take up your questions, do you really think the photos taken with them are VASTLY superior to those taken with other equipment? Are other photographers or girls impressed if they see you with them? Will someone say "GOOD LORD, those pictures DOUBTLESSLY HAVE BEEN MADE WITH SUPERIOR EQUIPMENT"? "The MAN WHO OWNS THAT EQUIPMENT CERTAINLY HAS SUPERIOR TASTE"?
At some point you just realize that someone else's utility function may not be identical with yours, and that's it. I know people who have paid more for a FED than what Noctiluxes are going for nowadays. Those are collectors and everybody knows that collecting may lead to economically irrational behaviour. Other people have paid even more for other equipment and justified it by the photographic output, which they liked, but in my eyes just wasn't really worth the money. So what? It's their money, let them spend it.
Philipp
Last edited:
M. Valdemar
Well-known
I buy the expensive stuff to trade or sell. I keep them awhile to fool around with them. I don't pay anywhere near retail.
I'm under no illusion that they are optically superior or will make me a better photographer.
I'm a horse trader. I like to buy and sell. I know the resale value of the stuff I get.
My critique is based on the fact that many DO spend absurd amounts of money in the belief it will make them better photographers.
I'm under no illusion that they are optically superior or will make me a better photographer.
I'm a horse trader. I like to buy and sell. I know the resale value of the stuff I get.
My critique is based on the fact that many DO spend absurd amounts of money in the belief it will make them better photographers.
infrequent
Well-known
@patman - love that black blazer in your avatar. shot from your reliable M8?
ferider
Veteran
Whenever one moves away from specific lenses to a comparison of "Leica glass" vs. Canon glass, vs. whatever, any objectivity is lost. Whether you are in favor or against one brand, doesn't matter - you fell into a marketing trap. Some lenses are better than others, for any brand.
The 35/2 pre-asph is special because it's small. The 50/1.0 is special due to specs. The 75/1.4 has no RF competition either, due to specs. But so do CV 12, 35/1.2 and 40/1.4. Etc. No competition. Forget the price. The specs are special to some people.
As simple as that.
Roland.
The 35/2 pre-asph is special because it's small. The 50/1.0 is special due to specs. The 75/1.4 has no RF competition either, due to specs. But so do CV 12, 35/1.2 and 40/1.4. Etc. No competition. Forget the price. The specs are special to some people.
As simple as that.
Roland.
Patman
Established
No that was shot with a Canon and and by a professional photo journalist who had too take 100 photos to get one decent one that took about an hour of PS editing too make it look real.
infrequent
Well-known
@patman - shame about canon. i have always believed they should stick to photocopiers.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Canon made cameras LONG before they (or anyone else) made photocopiers. I've never owned a Canon camera in my life but I recognize that they make good equipment that a very, very large percent of actual professional photographers use as their everyday tools of the trade. Some of you people need to get a life.
Nokton48
Veteran
I have been buying "beater" Leica lenses, and they -are- great! If you've never used one, then I guess you have that to look forward to! I didn't buy this stuff to "pose" with it, I use it (not every day, but when I feel like it, now). I have used Leicas for professional (commercial) uses, and I prefer them, as a tool of choice.
infrequent
Well-known
@chriscrawfordphoto - i was being facetious. chill man!
oscroft
Veteran
Wow, you must look bad in real life!
Cheers,
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I guess I'm coming too late to this party, but here's my take...
I've shot lots of lenses, used Nikons professionally for years, moved to a Contax G2 and then an M7 for my own work because it was small and quiet. The first thing I saw, before I read any of the hype and bashing on this forum was that the negatives were better. A 16x20 print from that 50 Summicron was noticeably better than a 16x20 print from any Nikon SLR lens I'd ever shot- the 50/1.8, 85/1.4, the 105/2 DC, the 35/1.4, the 185/2.8- any of them. Better how? More legible detail over more of the image area, throughout the range of apertures. Better too than negatives from the G 45/2, which is a darn fine lens. Granted, this may not be a concern for everyone, but in the images I make this was a huge visible improvement.
I've since shot lots of M mount Zeiss lenses (21/2.8, 25/2.8, 28/2.8 and 50/2), the Konica 50/2, and the CV 75/2.5. Of all these I've kept the ZM 25 and sold the rest, replacing them with a lens that gives me the level of detail I'm looking for. In all but one case, I've moved to a Leica lens, which on test has delivered better performance (I went back to the Zeiss 21/2.8 in G mount, for I've found this one to work the best for my subjects).
We each have our own needs when it comes to the images we make. If you're making images that will be printed at 5x7 or 8x10 then you'd be hard pressed to need the greater visible detail the 28/2 ASPH Summicron delivers over the ZM 28. For portraits, the more clumsy rendition an older lens brings to the table can be a real asset- I have an old Wollensak 6" f5 Vesta Portrait lens that I love on 4x5 film.
I'll agree that full aperture shooting is one place where Leica lenses shine. Whether it is the 50/1.4 E43 or the 28/2 ASPH I find a difference in contrast and detail over Nikon or Zeiss. I don't need to have the Leica name on things, I want to have lenses that allow me to make the prints I want to make when I manage to make an image worth it. Few things are as frustrating to me as having made a good image that falls apart at size due to the lens. If I've made a mistake in film choice or exposure or development I know it was my fault, and I'm able to learn from that. When the fault is from the physical shortcomings of the lens, and such problems are consistently seen from that lens the only answer is to change the lens.
Perhaps I'm overly critical of my work. I'm willing to admit that I'm likely more critical than many out there. It has brought me success. There are some of us who see that the differences lenses bring to the process are just as important, and choose lenses deliberately for the way they impact the print, just as one chooses Velvia over Kodachrome, or a painter chooses gouache over watercolor.
The OP asked how "special" Leica glass was- I'd say just as special as Spiratone, only different. Only by seeing how different lenses effect your pictures can you say for sure whether the Leica, Zeiss, CV or Industar is right for you. Try as many lenses as you can. You will know the ones that are special from those first few rolls.
*edit* I should add that there have been several Leica lenses which have not performed as I needed for one reason or another and were sold. The 90/2.8 is one lens that I've seen many beautiful images made with but just didn't work for me. The 90/2.0 AA has fit in well. Likewise, the 40/2 is a lens I find quite suitable for family snapshots, for combined with Kodachrome I get a very nostalgic look- but for my landscape or street work I find it quite useless.
I've shot lots of lenses, used Nikons professionally for years, moved to a Contax G2 and then an M7 for my own work because it was small and quiet. The first thing I saw, before I read any of the hype and bashing on this forum was that the negatives were better. A 16x20 print from that 50 Summicron was noticeably better than a 16x20 print from any Nikon SLR lens I'd ever shot- the 50/1.8, 85/1.4, the 105/2 DC, the 35/1.4, the 185/2.8- any of them. Better how? More legible detail over more of the image area, throughout the range of apertures. Better too than negatives from the G 45/2, which is a darn fine lens. Granted, this may not be a concern for everyone, but in the images I make this was a huge visible improvement.
I've since shot lots of M mount Zeiss lenses (21/2.8, 25/2.8, 28/2.8 and 50/2), the Konica 50/2, and the CV 75/2.5. Of all these I've kept the ZM 25 and sold the rest, replacing them with a lens that gives me the level of detail I'm looking for. In all but one case, I've moved to a Leica lens, which on test has delivered better performance (I went back to the Zeiss 21/2.8 in G mount, for I've found this one to work the best for my subjects).
We each have our own needs when it comes to the images we make. If you're making images that will be printed at 5x7 or 8x10 then you'd be hard pressed to need the greater visible detail the 28/2 ASPH Summicron delivers over the ZM 28. For portraits, the more clumsy rendition an older lens brings to the table can be a real asset- I have an old Wollensak 6" f5 Vesta Portrait lens that I love on 4x5 film.
I'll agree that full aperture shooting is one place where Leica lenses shine. Whether it is the 50/1.4 E43 or the 28/2 ASPH I find a difference in contrast and detail over Nikon or Zeiss. I don't need to have the Leica name on things, I want to have lenses that allow me to make the prints I want to make when I manage to make an image worth it. Few things are as frustrating to me as having made a good image that falls apart at size due to the lens. If I've made a mistake in film choice or exposure or development I know it was my fault, and I'm able to learn from that. When the fault is from the physical shortcomings of the lens, and such problems are consistently seen from that lens the only answer is to change the lens.
Perhaps I'm overly critical of my work. I'm willing to admit that I'm likely more critical than many out there. It has brought me success. There are some of us who see that the differences lenses bring to the process are just as important, and choose lenses deliberately for the way they impact the print, just as one chooses Velvia over Kodachrome, or a painter chooses gouache over watercolor.
The OP asked how "special" Leica glass was- I'd say just as special as Spiratone, only different. Only by seeing how different lenses effect your pictures can you say for sure whether the Leica, Zeiss, CV or Industar is right for you. Try as many lenses as you can. You will know the ones that are special from those first few rolls.
*edit* I should add that there have been several Leica lenses which have not performed as I needed for one reason or another and were sold. The 90/2.8 is one lens that I've seen many beautiful images made with but just didn't work for me. The 90/2.0 AA has fit in well. Likewise, the 40/2 is a lens I find quite suitable for family snapshots, for combined with Kodachrome I get a very nostalgic look- but for my landscape or street work I find it quite useless.
Last edited:
literiter
Well-known
I have 35,50,90 and 135 for my Leicas. What really stands out, for me, is how seldom I use any lens but the 35 or 50. Indeed I'm mostly partial to the 50 which commonly resides on the M4-P then the 35 which is usually on the M2.
These cameras have one big advantage over any other camera ... I own them. If I hadn't bought them so long ago I don't think I'd bother now. The lenses are certainly good, the cameras are very reliable, exposures are excellent even without a CLA in 20 years. Always there, always consistent.
These days I use them mostly with slide film, on a tripod and cable release, for scenics and still life stuff. Incident light readings when I can. The images, to my eye are indistinguishable from what is produce from my F3. I find the Leicas are a little handier.
I've got some Hasselblad stuff when I really want to get big enlargements.
These cameras have one big advantage over any other camera ... I own them. If I hadn't bought them so long ago I don't think I'd bother now. The lenses are certainly good, the cameras are very reliable, exposures are excellent even without a CLA in 20 years. Always there, always consistent.
These days I use them mostly with slide film, on a tripod and cable release, for scenics and still life stuff. Incident light readings when I can. The images, to my eye are indistinguishable from what is produce from my F3. I find the Leicas are a little handier.
I've got some Hasselblad stuff when I really want to get big enlargements.
I think I'm in general agreement with Sepiareverb. I like quality both in the use and in the results. Three almost-excellent lenses are not equivalent in value to one outstanding lens of equal cost. But I'm not so picky about the brand. I can count on Zeiss and Leica to be excellent nearly all the time, and Pentax, Olympus, etc. are quite acceptable with rare exception. I'd rather be limited by my own abilities than by the quality of the gear.
But since different people have different priorities, we're unlikely to persuade anyone else to our own, and the discussion probably won't "lead into the light". Best wishes to all for satisfying snaps.
But since different people have different priorities, we're unlikely to persuade anyone else to our own, and the discussion probably won't "lead into the light". Best wishes to all for satisfying snaps.
Patman
Established
Nah, just cheap camera, cheap glass and crappy photojournalist, you know the type, Canon and Nikon owners!Wow, you must look bad in real life!
Cheers,
Hey guys, I really hope I'm not offending anyone, just joking around.