Rob-F
Likes Leicas
We are talking film bodies, here. I have both Nikon and Leica SLRs, and a fair amount of glass for each. I believe I get more highly saturated slides (Velvia, usually) with my Leica glass. I also seem to think the color balance is rather more to the cool side with the Leica lenses, compared to Nikon.
But I have not done many structured tests, side-by side, with the same subjects and film. Just one, in fact. So I may be influenced by my beliefs that Leica is somehow better.
If you have both, or have used both, what do you think?
But I have not done many structured tests, side-by side, with the same subjects and film. Just one, in fact. So I may be influenced by my beliefs that Leica is somehow better.
If you have both, or have used both, what do you think?
nobbylon
Veteran
I've only used 35, 50 and 90 Leica R lenses and I would say that they have more of an apparent 3d effect than Nikon lenses.
I like the R glass I have as it gives a consistant look and colour across the focal range.
There are some fantastic Nikkors and to mention what I believe are comparible in image quality, these stand out for me.
28 AIS
50 f1.8 and f2 AI
105 f2.5 AI and AIS
24-70 f2.8 AF
I like the R glass I have as it gives a consistant look and colour across the focal range.
There are some fantastic Nikkors and to mention what I believe are comparible in image quality, these stand out for me.
28 AIS
50 f1.8 and f2 AI
105 f2.5 AI and AIS
24-70 f2.8 AF
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I also have shot some Nikon primes and Leica (R mount) primes of the same focal length, and it's the Leica lenses by a very long shot wide-open. But if you're talking money-wise, and you're just shooting closed down (say, f/4 through f/8) which is what most photographers do, anyway, most can only see the difference by grain-peeping (or pixel-peeping).
It's a bit like asking whether an 18-year-old Macallan gives you a better buzz than Johnny Walker: it really depends on who you're asking
It's a bit like asking whether an 18-year-old Macallan gives you a better buzz than Johnny Walker: it really depends on who you're asking
W
wlewisiii
Guest
None.
Seriously. I can find real differences in optical design (Tessar vs. Gauss), film (Ektar vs Tri-x, duh!) or other bits.
Reality? Our eyes can't see ****.
Seriously. I can find real differences in optical design (Tessar vs. Gauss), film (Ektar vs Tri-x, duh!) or other bits.
Reality? Our eyes can't see ****.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Agreed. There are some classic lens designs with visibly specific flaws, but in a world of 90% Gauss types it is barely ever possible to spot a particular lens in a double blind test on real subject matter - even less so a maker.
Sevo
Sparrow
Veteran
One of them turns the wrong way, I've noticed
nobbylon
Veteran
I don't agree. I've used the Nikon lenses I listed and many more a lot and I drifted away from R glass.
Wide open there are very few Nikkors that can perform as well as R glass. It's not even just about sharpness.
Why do some people prefer Leica and some Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc.
It's not even about cost or function as I've gone back to R and I'm actually using my R glass on a D700 and lose auto aperture and AF.
It's about making photos that satisfy the individual and having tried many different brands along the way, I've found that below f5.6 on the whole Leica glass is more pleasing to me and the way I take photographs.
The only Nikkor that I've used that gives me that same feeling is the 24-70 2.8.
A Pentax 50 1.4 Super Tak m42 comes to mind also.
I take most of my pictures at 1.4, 2 and f4 and do see a difference.
It's not about brand or price. It's about finding what works for the look you like and for me it just happens to be 35 and 50 Summicrons, both R and M.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
gavinlg
Veteran
I can tell you 100% that I can tell the difference between two similar photos taken with a Zeiss 35mm distagon and a Canon 35L. Quite a large difference in contrast, spacial rendering, colors, out of focus areas etc...
nobbylon
Veteran
and your point is?
Some see the difference and others don't. If you don't then you are lucky as it won't matter what you take pictures with and you will be happy with the results!
dave lackey
Veteran
With the 35 Lux and the 80 Lux....all the difference in the world.
oftheherd
Veteran
And the winner is?
nobbylon
Veteran
35 summicron!!!
dave lackey
Veteran
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That has the appearance of being a vacuous statement. Why don't you spell it out for us?
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
The human preference for branded products in general is irrational, even more so today, when quality differences are mostly shallow and most brands are entirely artificial inventions of marketing.
Branding seems to have common roots with many human mental concepts that grew out of the basic friend or foe definition by tribe. If you feel happier belonging to the tribe of Nikon rather than Leica, or Mercedes rather than BMW, do so - our primate mind sometimes can't help feeling that way. Just don't make believe it is a rational decision to spend large wads of cash on tribal insignia, and don't overdo fighting the other tribes to the point of losing your politeness.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah, so it was nothing to do with food adulteration scandals in the second half of the 19th century, as the generally agrarian population was migrating to the cites? ... when most of these brand-names originated thanks to the trust the public placed in their products
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
On film I prefer the Canon 35L - I don't think film stresses the lenses enough to need the extra 'kick' the zeiss provides, and f1.4 is a big advantage. On digital though - a canon 5d - the distagon is more impressive, and I can tell a large difference between them.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There doubtlessly is a desire for trustworthy products involved - many pioneer brand products even were sectarian in origin (whether Quaker Oats or the Corn Flakes invented by Dr. Kellogg to quench the human sex drive alongside of bizarre clothing and lots of enemas), where production by a maker of the same faith (or sect) may even have been a religious requirement. But on the other hand brand products were the first to be adultered on a massive scale - the perception of trust and familiar homeliness already was artificial and irrational back then.
Branding is much older, though it originally was regional or by guild rather than corporate - cheeses, sausages, beer and other preserved food had been traded by (local) brand since the middle ages. Garum (Roman fish sauce) already was corporate branded some 2000 years ago.
At the core branding seems to have occurred as a direct consequence of industrialisation - when the sheer production volume of a company became big enough, it gave its products a corporate brand in much the same way as previous "brands" had defined themselves by guild or region.
As I said, it is a matter of how our mind maps the world...
Last edited:
nobbylon
Veteran
Well I'm definitely no Leica fanboy and I really dislike handing over wads of cash for anything. I have no need to be in one tribe or the other.
Fact is I've tried, like a lot of others have, plenty of different brands.
I notice a difference and it gives me pleasure being able to produce what I believe are nice photographs. If I could find a camera that did it for £20 and had Tesco or Boots on the front then I'd be using it and spend my hard earned on something else but I can't.
There are so many people who make judgements and statements about particular equipment that I can't understand as I'm obviously comparing these with my own findings.
Be honest, have you used Leica R glass and if so how much? If you have and can't see a difference then I apologise in advance.
For me I love the way oof and depth perception look with the Summicrons when shot wide. The way that point light source is rendered to smooth glowing circular shapes and the overall clarity and consistency of colour is worth the extra wad of cash!