Leica Newbie

[v3cron]

Getting into 35mm after spending years with medium format. I currently shoot mainly with a Mamiya 6, Fuji GW670II, and a Ricoh GR1 (my new favorite!).

I've been doing a lot of reading on this site about different M and CV lenses, and I'm pretty confused!

I plan to get a CV camera (not sure which, probably an R2m, and then add an R4m for wides when it comes out, or an m6 .58x) and don't know which lenses to start with. I see reasonably affordable prices on some of the Canadian Summicron 35/f2 lenses. How much better are these than the CV 1.7 and 2.5 lenses?

Eventually, I will also need a 28mm. Is the CV 28mm/f1.9 reasonably close in performance to the more expensive Leica?

I'm looking for a subjective idea of these lenses perform. Do the CV lenses have a Japanese look, or do they imitate more German qualities?


Sorry for the basic questions, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Chris

 

[FrankS]

You get a lot of image quality per $ wih CV lenses. I suggest that you start there and if you aren't satisfied with their performance, you might be able to get slightly better performance from Leica glass, but at a very high cost. Only you will be in the position to decide if it is worth it for you.
For myself, I cannot justify the cost of a new or even used Leica 35 Summicron or Leica 28mm lens. But that's jsut me. I do have Leica lenses in the 40, 50, and 90mm range that I bought affordably used. I'm thinking that photographer's skill is the weak link in my photography, not poor lens performance. YMMV Good luck!

Oh, and welcome to RFF!

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

I own CV and Leica lenses in my favorite focal lengths, and while the build quality is usually marginally higher on the Leicas, the optical quality is very very close. So close that you'd have to waste a lot of time trying to distinguish them, if that sort of activity intrigues, and for some people, it oddly does 😉

That said, I think any of the 35 crons, asph or pre-asph are stellar performers. As for the 28 focal length, I actually feel that the 28 ultron is a more nuanced and personality filled performer than the more clinical 28 cron. But this is all subjective.

The bottom line is, great shots that are great compositionally, will not suffer from being made by CV lenses rather than Leica lenses. On the other hand, if you have the funds for Leica lenses, then your dilemma is moot ... get Leica lenses, that way you save yourself the false economy of succumbing to Leica lust in the end 😉

 

[v3cron]

Thank you, Frank! I'm used to shooting really nice medium format stuff, so I don't want to skimp on the 35. At the same time, I'm not rich! I used to have a Contax g1 and loved the lenses, but I don't think I want an electro camera....even if the lenses are as spectacular as they are.

 

[Trius]

What about Zeiss M lenses? They fall in between CV & Leica in price.

 

[v3cron]

What about Zeiss M lenses? They fall in between CV & Leica in price.

Might be an option, but at first glance, they seem to be the same as the used Leicas I'm looking at. I'd love to look at the ZI body, as I hear the RF is amazing, but I can't pay that much for a Cosina, no matter how nice 😉

 

[v3cron]

I own CV and Leica lenses in my favorite focal lengths, and while the build quality is usually marginally higher on the Leicas, the optical quality is very very close. So close that you'd have to waste a lot of time trying to distinguish them, if that sort of activity intrigues, and for some people, it oddly does 😉

That said, I think any of the 35 crons, asph or pre-asph are stellar performers. As for the 28 focal length, I actually feel that the 28 ultron is a more nuanced and personality filled performer than the more clinical 28 cron. But this is all subjective.

The bottom line is, great shots that are great compositionally, will not suffer from being made by CV lenses rather than Leica lenses. On the other hand, if you have the funds for Leica lenses, then your dilemma is moot ... get Leica lenses, that way you save yourself the false economy of succumbing to Leica lust in the end 😉

Thanks. I'm going to have to try some of these out. Thankfully, I live near PhotoVillage!

 

[FrankS]

The way I look at it is, if image quality is the highest goal, then I should be using a larger format camera than 35! Or at least be using the 35mm camera on a tripod.

If the highest goal is to cature a fleeting moment, I'm not going to worry about highest image quality, certainly not the difference between Leica glass and CV glass!

If I won a big lottery, multi-millions, then yes, I would go out and buy all new Leica glass, because in 35mm, I think it is the best, but at a very high cost for an incremental improvement from the lenses that I can afford right now.

 

[v3cron]

The way I look at it is, if image quality is the highest goal, then I should be using a larger format camera than 35! Or at least be using the 35mm camera on a tripod.

If the highest goal is to cature a fleeting moment, I'm not going to worry about highest image quality, certainly not the difference between Leica glass and CV glass!

If I won a big lottery, multi-millions, then yes, I would go out and buy all new Leica glass, because in 35mm, I think it is the best, but at a very high cost for an incremental improvement from the lenses that I can afford right now.

yeah, if i want crystal clear, i'll whip out the mamiya or fuji rf. i like grainy, low-light, but ultra-sharp 35 negs 😉 . (example: ralph gibson or daido moriyama)

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

daido moriyama used a GR1 and GR1s up and until he began using the GRD

so Leica lenses are not necessary

 

[v3cron]

daido moriyama used a GR1 and GR1s up and until he began using the GRD

so Leica lenses are not necessary

i know, and after my last shoot with my new-ish gr-1, i understand why! funny thing is, i sold a leica minilux for it, so i know just what you mean...

 

[venchka]

...I see reasonably affordable prices on some of the Canadian Summicron 35/f2 lenses.

Chris

I wish I knew where you were shopping.

By all accounts, in the 35mm focal length, there don't seem to be any bad performers. Pick a price point and there are good lenses to be had. I think that if you go wider than 35mm, then the various C/V and Zeiss lenses begin to make more and more sense in the dollars spent for image quality returned equation. The Zeiss 25mm is a perfect example.

Good luck!

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[FrankS]

Hi Magus. No problem. It all depends how we each define the words incremental and monumental, so it's a disagreement in semantics. Monumental and quantum leap, are descriptors that carry more weight in my lexicon than they do in yours. We cannot argue further without a defined common understanding of the terminology we are using.

I'd love to print 2 negs of the same scene, one taken with say, a CV Nokton 50, the other an asp. Summilux. No doubt there will be a difference, but how much of a difference is what we disagree on how to describe.

The Summilux costs 3 or 4 times as much as the Nokton. With my level of income and the responsibilities I have to my family, I cannot justify to myself the purchase of a Summlux. It is simply out of the question. If I were single or so wealthy that such a purchase had no impact on my family, then it would be within the realm of consideration.

And again, I'd like to make the point that my photography skills are the weak link in the chain of factors that combine to create a photographic image, not the quality or lack thereof, of my gear. Think of all the outstanding images made over the years by the great photographers without the benefit of the latest Leica asphereical lenses. I wish to come close to those in my efforts.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

Magus is right that there are differences, incremental or monumental is subjective.

Frank is right that those differences are irrelevant in judging whether an image is outstanding.

So the bottom line is, if you have the funds to buy Leica, do it. If you don't, then the question is moot ... go ahead and buy Zeiss, CV, Hexanon. Your work is more likely to succeed based on your eye, rather than your glass.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[FrankS]

Magus, I'm enjoying this discussion! 🙂 I don't see it as a heated arguement.

Monumental and quantum leap, are descriptors that carry more weight in my lexicon than they do in yours.

(My emphasis.) Frank, red card!! You cannot draw this inference.

But I do infer this because I cannot imagine the difference to be so large. I would describe the difference between a Holga photograph and a CV lens image to be monumental. I just use the words differently than you. It is jsut semantics.

BTW, if you are a detail/texture addict, you should be using a larger format!

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[v3cron]

let me refine the question a bit:

there are 35mm/f2 summicrons and 50mm/f1.4 summiliuxes available for $600-$800, which i could pop for if they are really better than the $400 CV lenses. i assume these are pretty old, given the price point, so what qualitative difference could i expect, both between different generation leicas, and new cv lenses?

i know it's a bit of a broad question, but i'm trying to get a good overview before i go shopping.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request