Leica SLR vs. Nikon SLR glass: What difference do you see?

Canyongazer said:
"They knew the pictures shot by "Stephen" the Leica owner"
Actually, they didn't. I ran the projector with everyone's work in one or two trays. The photographer was not identified until two or three of his chromes were shown, usually because someone had a question for the photographer---sometimes not until all 8 or 10 had been shown and then just for my grading purposes.

And, yes, it was common to re-take this class. Usually half the students had taken it before. Repeaters did so primarily to have access to the models and build their portfolios. Too, as with most things, the more you do it the better you get. Most people have a hard time working one on one with a model when they are inexperienced.
Click to expand...

I have experienced something similar with a camera I once owned, two of my friends claimed they could pick out the photos i took by just looking at the slides on a screen, sharper and just better they claimed. Personally I could not tell the difference so maybe they were just being nice, but even today some 25 odd years later they still reckon that 'those' images on 'that ' lens were better.

I was shooting a Canon Ftb with a 50mm f1.8 and they would have been shooting OM-1 & OM-2 with std lenses ..the f i don't remember.

Maybe it's true maybe I got a great lens who knows but I believe it's possible I just can't and wouldn't try to prove it.
 
dave lackey said:
Sorry, have to disagree with you on two points: The S2 is a current digital SLR for Leica and there are a number of people here using R body Leica cameras because we like them! Rather overbroad statements. Other than that, carry on...:)
Click to expand...

You've misunderstood and/or mischaracterized what i said.

1. The S2 is as irrelevant to this discussion as the M9.
2. I also used R bodies (R7 and R8), and "like them." But, they still offered no advantages OVER other SLRs. I haven't said they're not as good, or are less capable.
 
In my limited experience with Nikkors (50/2 AI, 50/1.4 non-AI and AIS, 105/2.5 non-AI), the general equivalent Leica R lenses of the relative same age are sharper at wider apertures, rendered more saturated colors, and possessed a more pleasant bokeh. More contrast too if memory serves me correct. The mechanical build of the Leitz lenses is also better. Rarely does an old Leica lens need relubing; almost every Nikon non-ai I've fiddled with needs new lubrication.

Not saying Nikkors are bad, and when $$ is factored in they are definitely the better value, and the differences can be ameliorated in photoshop, but it is telling that no one is gobbling up old Nikkors to use on digital cameras. Having said that, the 105mm was splendid.

As an addendum I would add that lighting, choice of film and developer has more impact on the image then whether the lens is made in Germany or Japan.

As a postscript I would add that the platform cannot be ignored. I shoot Leica R lenses on a Leicaflex SL which has very good shutter brakes and damping system. Less vibration then a Nikon F/F2 at the same shutter speed. No doubt that effects lens performance.

Like Canon and Minolta lenses, you can take great pictures with either.
 
I'm not a big fan of reopening dead threads, but since someone else did, I'll just jump on in.

I've just started using Leica R gear, having had a hiatus after doing so because of issues with the camera, and one of the lenses. I've also switched labs which has given my photos a big improvement on looks.

I really liked what I got from the R glass on the first roll I shot, with the Elmarit-R 2.8/28 3-cam being my favorite so far. Lack of distortion, and great flare control impressed me the most.

That said, I also have SLR lenses in five other brands (Nikon, Minolta, Yashica, Canon, and Olympus). My conclusion to any argument about lens quality is you can find stunners, and also-rans in any camera line, no matter what. No manufacturer makes lenses that are consistently excellent, or have a certain "look" across the entire line. There are just too many variables for that to happen. And what one perceives as quality is highly subjective to the individual.

While the search for good glass is interesting, it's what you do with any lens that counts.

PF
 
I'm also skeptical there are significant differences between these lenses if they were made in the same era. Obviously coated vs uncoated, there's a difference. Different formulas have different looks, or so I'm told.

I can't afford much in the way of really amazing lenses, and I doubt most people can. When you have a situation where two very expensive things are being compared, it's rare to find someone with both of them, so the owners of one are easily differentiated into separate camps who justify their decisions based on some perceived quality difference.

Lighting and composition matter. Subjects matter. Do the differenced between high quality lenses for a miniature format really matter?
 
Last edited:
Yes. Yes they do. You can make up some kind of intellectual framework that implies everyone but you is biased, or you can look at the pictures. Which do you think means something? There is some correlation between price and 'quality', but every lens is different, and quality is subjective. My favorite lenses didn't cost much.
 
When working with Kodachrome years back I always wanted Leica glass. It rendered color more to my taste than Nikon. But, having to depend on my camera gear to pay my bills, I stuck with Nikon. It was a matter of the lens selection and above all, problems with poor quality R cameras. I knew guys who packed 4 bodies as they were always failing. Add to that, Leica's very poor repair turn around times. NPS would Fed X me a camera if I had a failure. None of my Nikons ever let me down. I heard constant stories of R failures. But the glass is wonderful. If I wanted Leica glass, I would have the mounts converted to Nikon.

Go look at Ernst Haas's work. He did much of his personal work with Leica SLR cameras. It was funny, that when he did big ad assignments he used Nikon cameras and lenses. But, most of the work you will find on the web was made with Leicas Also, look at Bill Allard's work. Much shot with M cameras, but all SLR was Leica. He talked of R4 failures too. Leica didn't care. And, they care less now. No pros I know use Leica gear any longer. It's mostly repair issues, not the money. Fuji has filled the gap with most pros wanting M type cameras, plus the same lenses mate to their other cameras.

I seem to remember that Leica R cameras were made by Minolta? It's been a long time. The SL cameras were Leica made as I recall. Anyone know about the Minolta Leica R bodies?
 
Has anyone compared select Minolta lenses and Leica R lenses? Or compared the same Minolta lenses that were licensed by Leica against Nikkors? From the R4 period, onward Leica was largely cooperating with Minolta and either outsourcing their designs to Minolta or using the Minolta lenses part and parcel but with a Leica R mount. This alone is something that should punch a few holes in the Leica mythology. I'm willing to bet that the Kyocera era Contax/Yashica lenses will perform on par and sometimes even better than the Leica analogues. I've had years of experience using incredible Contax glass but had to change to Nikon due to issues of body reliability. Same reason I moved from Leica back to Nikon. Really, most of the miniature format lenses from the big manufacturers are 97% the performance of each other. A few are notable but across the board there isn't one brand that is better than the other.
I've thought about adapting R lenses to Nikon F mount but they focus "backwards" and I really don't feel like spending so much money to get a difference in performance that I may not be able to see without a microscope. At that point, other factors come into play: mounting/vibration dampening of my scanner; perfectly clean scanner mirror; proper alignment of the grain focuser; perfect parallel alignment of the enlarger head; temperature of the negative in the enlarger; a litany of other very small variables that more or less level the playing field.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Has anyone compared select Minolta lenses and Leica R lenses? Or compared the same Minolta lenses that were licensed by Leica against Nikkors? From the R4 period, onward Leica was largely cooperating with Minolta and either outsourcing their designs to Minolta or using the Minolta lenses part and parcel but with a Leica R mount. This alone is something that should punch a few holes in the Leica mythology. I'm willing to bet that the Kyocera era Contax/Yashica lenses will perform on par and sometimes even better than the Leica analogues. I've had years of experience using incredible Contax glass but had to change to Nikon due to issues of body reliability. Same reason I moved from Leica back to Nikon. Really, most of the miniature format lenses from the big manufacturers are 97% the performance of each other. A few are notable but across the board there isn't one brand that is better than the other.
I've thought about adapting R lenses to Nikon F mount but they focus "backwards" and I really don't feel like spending so much money to get a difference in performance that I may not be able to see without a microscope. At that point, other factors come into play: mounting/vibration dampening of my scanner; perfectly clean scanner mirror; proper alignment of the grain focuser; perfect parallel alignment of the enlarger head; temperature of the negative in the enlarger; a litany of other very small variables that more or less level the playing field.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

You remind me that for B&W I always thought Contax produced the best images to my liking. I stuck with Nikon and M bodies. I think at one point I owned 15 Nikon lenses. Only really used 7 of them and mostly used 2 or 3. It was easy to find good used Nikon Lenses, savings spent on expensive new glass (300 2.8) I almost never used. I was an idiot at times but not often enough to fail. pkr
 
PKR said:
It was easy to find good used Nikon Lenses, savings spent on expensive new glass (300 2.8) I almost never used. I was an idiot at times but not often enough to fail.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way. I spent the most money on the lenses I use the least but when I need them, I NEED them.
I've looked back and added up an estimate on what I've spent on gear over the past 25 years and is has to be like $60,000. Much of it sold at a loss but I consider that expense like rental. I used most of it for work so it wasn't really a loss but I didn't make money on gear. I settled on a few Nikon bodies, a couple Mamiya 6s, a 4x5 field camera and I have a couple little antique cameras that I like to take out as "Sunday drivers." I'm pretty sure my GASsy days of lusting after Leica glass or other rarities, are done.

Back on topic though, has anyone done a similar comparison as in the original post between the Leica and Minolta analogues?

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I'm the same way. I spent the most money on the lenses I use the least but when I need them, I NEED them.
I've looked back and added up an estimate on what I've spent on gear over the past 25 years and is has to be like $60,000. Much of it sold at a loss but I consider that expense like rental. I used most of it for work so it wasn't really a loss but I didn't make money on gear. I settled on a few Nikon bodies, a couple Mamiya 6s, a 4x5 field camera and I have a couple little antique cameras that I like to take out as "Sunday drivers." I'm pretty sure my GASsy days of lusting after Leica glass or other rarities, are done.

Back on topic though, has anyone done a similar comparison as in the original post between the Leica and Minolta analogues?

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

I wasn't a gear nut, just paranoid. I had one ad client who needed occasional telephoto work done. I owned 300,400, 500 cat,1000 cat. I looked back and the residuals from that one account is maybe my best all time client. The checks just kept on coming as the campaign was a great success. I would occasionally add one photo to the group of ads that ran over and over for a couple of years. When it was done, I sold all but the 400 5.6 ED IF.

Leica, Minolta, Sigma..?
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/minolta-leica-lens-collaboration-clarification.5492794/
 
PKR said:
I seem to remember that Leica R cameras were made by Minolta? It's been a long time. The SL cameras were Leica made as I recall. Anyone know about the Minolta Leica R bodies?
Click to expand...

R bodies such as the R4, R5, R6, were based on Minolta chassis. This may apply to the R7, R8, and R9; I'll see if I can find the articles in the Viewfinder to check my memory. Leica made the prism and did final assembly. The shutters were from another source: I'm going to take a chance and say Seikosha, as that is what I seem to remember. And production of the R line stopped when Seiko stopped making the shutters. By that time, it was the R9 that was in production, when the shutters became unavailable. I will have to dig through my old copies of Viewfinder and LFI to verify my details. I'll try to work up the energy to do that! :)
 
From what I've gleaned - the Leica R3 and R4-7 series were based on certain components of the equivalent Minolta SLRs (e.g. Copal shutter, mirror box, etc.) but were built by Leica and differed and improved in many aspects over the Minolta equivalents (e.g. light metering).
Some lenses (e.g. some fixed focal length and most of Leica's R zooms were made by Minolta or other manufacturers (Sigma, Kyocera) - Leica did quality control checks though before allowing them to be branded Leica)
The R8/9 series had no connection with Minolta
 
Phil_F_NM said:
Has anyone compared select Minolta lenses and Leica R lenses? Or compared the same Minolta lenses that were licensed by Leica against Nikkors? ...
Click to expand...

Yes and yes. If you can't see the differences, you need better eyes.
You can't see the differences in scanned images posted to the web, though; that's for sure.

I used Nikon SLRs for 32 years. I used a Minolta*SLR system for a while too. Both performed extremely well. But then I finally got the Leicaflex SL I'd wanted since I was 12 years old, and came into a brace of other, older Leica R system lenses. I compared them directly with my older Nikon lenses used with a Nikon F. Hands down, the Leica images were more pleasing to my eye. And that includes those made with the Elmarit-R 24mm f/2.8, often dissed as being "just a Minolta lens in an R mount" ... I had both and tested them both on the same body (Leica SL). It isn't, the differences are easily seen if you know what you're looking at. As a matter of fact, I compared that same 24mm lens against the highly touted Elmarit-R 28mm f/2.8 (Mark II) ... Nearly impossible to see any differences in that comparison. So either those "old Minolta lenses in a Leica R mount" were really remarkably darn good or the 28mm that everyone gets damp over wasn't as multiply wonderful as everyone says.

G
 
Made with Leica glass + Kodachrome

http://www.ernst-haas.com/

Some of Bill Allard's more current stuff is made with Nikon digital gear. The older stuff, most on the site, is all Leica glass.
http://www.williamalbertallard.com/


With Kodachrome gone this is of little interest now. What I saw in Leica glass was a difference in color rendering. My M glass showed the same quality as the R glass. This wasn't, in my case, about sharpness. It was about the "look" of the image. I got part way there with my Nikon lenses by using L1A filters (UV cut + blue attenuation). Back then, I worked with 3 camera bodies. 2 on motor drives for quick bracketing and 1 on a Forschier Polaroid back for light checks when using flash. If I could go back, I think I would have picked up an R body and two lenses and tried them out. I packed a lot of gear back then, but having to travel with back-up cameras for my back-up cameras may have made me nutzo. Fighting Leica repair would have been a big issue too. M bodies and lenses never gave me trouble.
I think Bill Allard carried 4 R4 bodies and 2 M6s. Working for NatGeo, he wasn't under the pressure of dealing with very tight delivery times. A broken camera wouldn't be a big deal. Back then NatGeo furnished Nikon gear to their staffers. The guy I assisted for traveled with 7 Nikon bodies and many lenses. Allard bought his own Leica R gear. It was a choice for the look he wanted. I recall Bill carried R lenses from 19mm to 180 but like most of us, took most of his pictures with a couple of them. Also, I think he used M bodies and lenses for most of his pictures. He's using Nikon digital cameras with zoom lenses now. But I know he does some work with a small Lumix camera.

I do all my work-work with digital cameras. I don't like the look of digital photos. When I look at a Kodachrome on a light table, or at a quality scan, it reminds me of how good an image can look. Gaining even more of "that look" with all the film I shot, in hind sight, I would have gone to Leica R glass and shot more color with my M cameras. I'm rarely passionate about technical stuff, but I am here. Just my two cents.
 
I have Zeiss, Olympus OM1, and many Leica R and Leica M lenses. And have used the odd Takumars, Schneider and Fuji FX lenses. I can tell which lens is which just by looking at a photograph. And if I can't remember which lens I used at one time, I look at the character of the image rendering and I can tell what lens is what. I have trained my eye to know each lens and what it can do - and yes, well I have not used Nikon gear, but I can tell you that THERE IS huge differences between lenses, and always the Leica's come on top in the sharpness, resolution department. In the end, it doesn't matter if you just want a photograph. It does matter if you want a certain look, colour, depth of field, distortion - etc, etc, etc.

It's great to know you lenses! To know your tools!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom