Is Leica hitting notes only a dog can hear?

[jlw]

This started out as a reasonable discussion of the reasonable proposition that some of the expensive excellence designed into Leica lenses gets lost in the noise inherent in real-world photography. Fine.

It now seems to be devolving into "I can't see a difference because I'm more practical and sensible than you" vs. "I can see a difference because my taste is more exquisitely refined than yours."

Pff.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[nightfly]

Probably stating the obvious here but if you paid $3000 for a lens that was not demonstrably better than a $400 lens, I'd assume you'd be loathe to admit it and would be inclined to impart some magical qualities that others were not seeing and attribute it not to financial imprudence but to more refined tastes.

After all people pay big money for speaker wire that cannot be proven to sound any better than stuff you can get at home depot for 10 cents a foot. Monster cable has built a whole business on this.

I don't think this is entirely the case with Leica glass, the advantages are that many of the Summicrons at least are really quite a bit smaller than other brands at the same aperture and they are optimized for shooting wide open which often isn't the case with other brands. And the build quality is superior to almost any mass produced product that I can think of. But the cost differential is simply outrageous. Fortunately they are built so well that when people tire of them or something better comes out , bottom feeders like myself can take advantage of the old stuff at prices only 2-3x of other brands instead of 5-10x.

 

[RObert Budding]

I don't think that leica can just start making nikon and eos lenses - they have to get a licence and pay a fee first. I can't see canon granting leica a licence to produce Eos lenses that potentially could blow theirs out of the water, properly compatible R series lenses on a 1DS mkII could be a killer combination for some work. But I also couldn't see Leica coming up with a fast AF system that would give them the in to the wider DSLR market, especially as they like heavyweight construction and fast AF depends on light weight plastic components within the lens.

Zeiss is making Nikon F-mount lenses. And Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma make lenses in various mounts. So why not Leica? They need to sell something to survive. But there is the price problem. There is probably a market for a better lens at a reasonable premium.

 

[Turtle]

Not to mention the fact that if you want ultimate image quality in film, you can buy complete hassies or 4x5 cameras for half the price of a 50mm summilux. Yes, they are the ultimate in 35mm quality, but if you are looking for ultimate quality why would you be using 35mm?

...because you cannot use a hassie like a Leica (or any 35mm RF). Your shooting circumstances and objective determine which format is appropriate and so it is a case of 'best quality given the format'. This is a point that repeatedly comes up and seems to result in comaprisons as appropriate as comparing tractors and track cars. There are plenty of circumstances where a hassie is a totally inappropriate tool and would mean not getting the shot. Under such circumstances I would happily use a smaller format and would naturally try to get the best from it, which could mean 35mm RF or SLR. I will happily use a 35mm SLR where a 35mm RF is not the best choice and while I do not get the same image quality from Canon zooms, I get the shot.

Leica, CV lenses, Zeiss RF lenses are about getting super quality from 35mm where 35mm is the best option and an RF appropriate! Lets stop comparing apples and oranges. If I can carry LF I do, but there are plenty of circumstances where I cannot.

I agree in part with the posters sentiments in that Leica ASPH lenses are now way out on their own in terms of price. This is whay so many people feel that Ziess have hit a home run with the new ZM lenses as their price-performance ratio is so good and IMO far better than Leica i this regard. This is why I bought mainly ziess lenses for my Leica M kit,but that is a personal choice.

 

[Turtle]

Probably stating the obvious here but if you paid $3000 for a lens that was not demonstrably better than a $400 lens, I'd assume you'd be loathe to admit it and would be inclined to impart some magical qualities that others were not seeing and attribute it not to financial imprudence but to more refined tastes.

After all people pay big money for speaker wire that cannot be proven to sound any better than stuff you can get at home depot for 10 cents a foot. Monster cable has built a whole business on this.

I don't think this is entirely the case with Leica glass, the advantages are that many of the Summicrons at least are really quite a bit smaller than other brands at the same aperture and they are optimized for shooting wide open which often isn't the case with other brands. And the build quality is superior to almost any mass produced product that I can think of. But the cost differential is simply outrageous. Fortunately they are built so well that when people tire of them or something better comes out , bottom feeders like myself can take advantage of the old stuff at prices only 2-3x of other brands instead of 5-10x.

I paid a lot for a 50 Lux which is on the way and I will eventually see how it compares to my 50 ZM planar (I got the 50 lux as part of an MP3 kit). I freely admit that the lux will not make shots magically better, but it is a stop faster and should allow for greater differential focus at teh same time as top performance even wide open. I could have lived without it, sure, but I wanted it as part of teh MP3 kit as something special and lasting. I will feel no particular need to defend it and will let people know once I get to make prints how it really affects a final image. I would like to think that my photos do the talking rather than my gear.

Just a point to add to the initial posting:

Fine lenses tend to deliver better contrast, esp wide open and can help.
With fast aperture lenses and no filters, it is not uncommon to be shooting at 1/250 at f2.8 or faster even in soft light with 100 speed film. At such speeds a tripod offers little benefit with a 35 or 50mm lens and would will get pretty well the best the lens offers. With a 90 or 135, of course a tripodcomes into its own unless you have even higher handheld speeds.

While some complain about Zeiss lenses being made by CV, I am glad of it. This is why their price-performance ration is so good. QC has had the odd glitch with dust specks or so, but nothing excessive it seems. Leica has trhe same issues.

I am so glad Zeiss came along a

 

[Toby]

...because you cannot use a hassie like a Leica (or any 35mm RF). Your shooting circumstances and objective determine which format is appropriate and so it is a case of 'best quality given the format'. This is a point that repeatedly comes up and seems to result in comaprisons as appropriate as comparing tractors and track cars. There are plenty of circumstances where a hassie is a totally inappropriate tool and would mean not getting the shot. Under such circumstances I would happily use a smaller format and would naturally try to get the best from it, which could mean 35mm RF or SLR. I will happily use a 35mm SLR where a 35mm RF is not the best choice and while I do not get the same image quality from Canon zooms, I get the shot.

Leica, CV lenses, Zeiss RF lenses are about getting super quality from 35mm where 35mm is the best option and an RF appropriate! Lets stop comparing apples and oranges. If I can carry LF I do, but there are plenty of circumstances where I cannot.

I agree in part with the posters sentiments in that Leica ASPH lenses are now way out on their own in terms of price. This is whay so many people feel that Ziess have hit a home run with the new ZM lenses as their price-performance ratio is so good and IMO far better than Leica i this regard. This is why I bought mainly ziess lenses for my Leica M kit,but that is a personal choice.

But for £1500 (summilux 50 new) you could buy a hassie and a ZM prime and have the best of both worlds - and surely that's the point, you can buy an extra camera with the current price differentials, and not exactly a crappy one.

 

[David Murphy]

Successful? How many people on this forum purchase new Leicas? A company has to sell new gear to survive. The Leica niche is now the high end of the 35mm film market (the M8 hasn't garnered a huge market share). Not exactly a large and growing segment.

Innovative? Maybe in the 1950's. But now they are painfully behind in the core technologies that are needed to compete in the photo market.

I still use 35mm film gear. But I generally reach for my medium or large format cameras when I really want high quality.

What to do? Leica doesn't have the resources and expertise to become a real player in digital photography. And the Leica brand is losing cachet in the photo market. So perhaps they should leverage their expertise in optics and sell lenses in Canon and Nikon mounts. It's a much larger niche and they actually might be able to make some money.

Yes, successful. The company is 158 years old. I'd say that's successful.

 

[Topdog1]

How many people would buy a $3,000+ f1.4 50mm Leica lens for their Nikon or Canon DSLRs? I don't think very many. Probably not even very many dual RF/DSLR owners who frequent this site. For that kind of lens, wouldn't you rather be using a RF anyway?

Also, I doubt that Leica would have a problem getting any licenses they need from the DSLR manufacturers. If Sigma and Tamron, who compete very effectively at the low end with Nikon and Canon, have no problems, why would Nikon and Canon give a hoot for the miniscule revenue they would loose to someone who makes that pricey a lens? Besides, it would just make their shooting platform more attractive with that kind of quality lens available for the few truly discriminating users.

Zeiss can go after this market because its lenses are not ridiculously priced. Leica would have to go down market to do that, which may or may not be a good idea as discussed here. But staying upmarket with a Leica quality and Leica priced DSLR lens would seem to promise few sales.

/Ira

 

[rpsawin]

I cannot afford a modern Leica, but if I could I would not want a dumbed down "Voigtlander" like camera made by Leica.

Yeah,

Look how badly the whole M2 fiasco turned out. The M2 was a dumbed down version of the M3 priced to make it affordable to a broader market. Suprise, suprise....the M2 turned out to be one of their highest selling models and is still a highly sought camera some 50 years later.

By the way....the original MP, when first released, was available only to professionals....the ones not carrying Graphics or that could not afford a photographer to travel with them.

Bob

 

[RObert Budding]

Yes, successful. The company is 158 years old. I'd say that's successful.

I don't think investors will define success by how long a company has existed.

 

[Trius]

On the other hand, don't you consider the new releases of digital compacts, 4/3 cameras and ZLR's to be mainstream cameras?

Yes I do. It is just beginning, for the most part, so I am waiting to see how it works out. 4/3 is the wild card; I truly don't know what to think.

But for £1500 (summilux 50 new) you could buy a hassie and a ZM prime and have the best of both worlds - and surely that's the point, you can buy an extra camera with the current price differentials, and not exactly a crappy one.

But here we go comparing apples & oranges again. Hell, for that money I could buy a gazillion disposable Kodaks or Fujis. But I'd have no interest in doing that. When I need/want to use my 4x5, I use it. It really isn't suited to the type of shooting I do with an RF, nor for the type of work I might do with an OM and a 300mm tele. The point was he wanted an MP.

 

[Oh Two]

Who let the dogs out?

Who let the dogs out?

All of this has been said about Apple computer. A niche market is a niche market and cost is cost. There is no advantage in Leica making lenses for Canon or Nikon products, and don't forget that rangefinders by design have advantages at making better performing lenses over SLRs.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Toby]

Yes I do. It is just beginning, for the most part, so I am waiting to see how it works out. 4/3 is the wild card; I truly don't know what to think.


But here we go comparing apples & oranges again. Hell, for that money I could buy a gazillion disposable Kodaks or Fujis. But I'd have no interest in doing that. When I need/want to use my 4x5, I use it. It really isn't suited to the type of shooting I do with an RF, nor for the type of work I might do with an OM and a 300mm tele. The point was he wanted an MP.

Please read what I said: For the price of a 50 summilux you could buy an excellent ZM 50 AND a hasselblad.

 

[KoNickon]

The original poster asked what the inherently better aspect of Leica lenses was that merited their high prices. It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere. Assuming that to be true, the question is: if you're handholding and using fast film in those situations (I'm guessing this is the case probably 95+% of the time, based on comments on RFF), how can you see this better quality?

Furthermore, it's generally true that all 35mm format lenses, Leica or otherwise, perform best at f5.6-f8 or thereabouts, and differences among lenses at those apertures are very small to nonexistent. Lens test after lens test demonstrates this. Photographers know this, and I'll bet the vast majority of pictures, when circumstances permit, are taken at those "sweet spot" apertures (narrow DOF being of minor importance except in limited situations).

So, then, how to justify buying a Leica lens, when its demonstrated superiority is only in certain rare photo situations? I think it has to come down to the perception of Leica quality rather than actual demonstrated better results, and the idea of owning "the best" rather than actual need for it. It's the same as owning a Porsche and never driving it at anywhere near its capabilities. "Need" = "want."

 

[Topdog1]

The original poster asked what the inherently better aspect of Leica lenses was that merited their high prices. It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere. Assuming that to be true, the question is: if you're handholding and using fast film in those situations (I'm guessing this is the case probably 95+% of the time, based on comments on RFF), how can you see this better quality?

Furthermore, it's generally true that all 35mm format lenses, Leica or otherwise, perform best at f5.6-f8 or thereabouts, and differences among lenses at those apertures are very small to nonexistent. Lens test after lens test demonstrates this. Photographers know this, and I'll bet the vast majority of pictures, when circumstances permit, are taken at those "sweet spot" apertures (narrow DOF being of minor importance except in limited situations).

So, then, how to justify buying a Leica lens, when its demonstrated superiority is only in certain rare photo situations? I think it has to come down to the perception of Leica quality rather than actual demonstrated better results, and the idea of owning "the best" rather than actual need for it. It's the same as owning a Porsche and never driving it at anywhere near its capabilities. "Need" = "want."

I shoot available light mostly. I would say 50%-75% of my photos are wide open, and I can never get enough aperture. I think your remarks are truer of snap shooters than serious photographers. (not disparaging snap shooters - it's just a different style.)

/Ira

 

[x-ray]

I don't think that leica can just start making nikon and eos lenses - they have to get a licence and pay a fee first. I can't see canon granting leica a licence to produce Eos lenses that potentially could blow theirs out of the water, properly compatible R series lenses on a 1DS mkII could be a killer combination for some work. But I also couldn't see Leica coming up with a fast AF system that would give them the in to the wider DSLR market, especially as they like heavyweight construction and fast AF depends on light weight plastic components within the lens.

I think the pattens have run out on the Nikon mount and that's why Zeiss is making lenses but WHY? Nikon glass is excellent. As to Canon the only lens that canon could gain from is a 19mm to replace the 20 that they have allready. the canon 20 is nothing to write home about but the 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are superb. All the longer Canon L glass is the best money can buy.

 

[HAnkg]

The fact that wide open available light pictures don't represent the majority of a photographers work doesn't mean that a lens that excels at that can not be justified. Ultra-wides and macro and shift lenses are specialty lenses but many photographers would not be without them as they are vital for certain types of work, even if its not the bulk of their work.

I know several Photo journalists whose bread and butter kit is Canon/Nikon digital but who still would not be without a RF loaded with B+W film for some types of work. I think the RF market is a well established niche market, not the dominant player it once was but a viable market non the less which has attracted some new vendors like Zeiss and Cosina. The problem in an era when China is manufacturer to the world and there is tremendous downward pressure on manufactured goods pricing is getting the performance/price ratio right. I think Zeiss and Canon L are at the high end of pricing. Leica is trying to carve out a niche quite a bit above that -I'm not so sure there is enough oxygen at that altitude.

 

[x-ray]

It's my understanding that Leica lenses are generally thought to outperform other lenses at wide apertures. That, if anything, is what you get with a Leica lens that you can't get elsewhere.

Thought is the key word. leicas reputation is based on leading edge technology from the 30's to the 60's. At that point virtually all the major makers of cameras and glass had caught up or surpassed them. Still leica is great but the mythology surrounding Leica is unbelievable. Leica is absolute proof that advertising works.

Don't get me wrong because i still like and use my leicas and will continue too but as you mature in your art you soon realise how Leica is no better than any of the other makers of cameras and glass. The M is esentially a camera that's been around since 1954 with only minor chances with the exceptiopn of the M7 and M8. Lenses are another thing. While Leica has improved lens performance so has everyone else and even to a greater degree.

My answer to whether Leica glass is worth the difference in cost from other makers, NO in most cases. In looling back through 40 years of shooting negs and closely evaluating the B&W negs I can not tell which negs were Leica and which are Nikon, Canon, Rollei, Minolta or Pentax. There are only a few shots that show any difference and those were shot with the old FD 20mm Canon and 18mm super takumar of which both were serious dogs. Other than that I only can tell because I remember what I was using at the time I shot the images.

After having three of my M lenses develope focusing mount / helix problems I would say the construction since the late 70's has been less than what I expect for the price. I've had more issues with a smaller number of lenses from Leica than I have from all other makers lenses over my 40 years of shooting profesionally. My M bodies have been virtually trouble free with only minor issues like a couple of RF alignments, self timer spring and that's about all. Lenses have been another thing. Also my Nikons over nearly 40 years have only had very minor things like a gear in a F2 motor wore out and a couple of meter calibrartins in my old F4's. A latch key broke on the F4 battery compartment and one 35mm F2 auto aperture failed. Considering I shot about 2,000 rolls a year through these for about twelve years I would say that's not too bad.