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

sevo said:
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...
Click to expand...

Well, "map it in your mind" if you wish; I'll stick to reading and understanding the actual history :)
 
"History has taught us that history has taught us nothing."

All in all, I feel the original question raised in this thread has not been answered to any extent.

Where are the shots?
 
nobbylon said:
Be honest, have you used Leica R glass and if so how much?
Click to expand...

Some three or four years, professionally, two SL2 and a R5, when I became sick of the mechanical quality of early Nikon AF lenses. At the time I believed it to be optically superior and stuck to it for a while, in spite of being less than happy with the bodies and limited lens choice. But in retrospect my photography from that time did not have any common "brand look" that could distinguish them from my preceding Nikon F2/F4 period or the following Canon EF period.
 
Last edited:
35mm f/1.4 Nikkor-N Auto, scalloped focusing barrel, black filter rim AI'd
58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor AIS

Amazing, quite rare and to expensive to be a practical alternative.
 
sevo said:
Some three or four years, professionally, two SL2 and a R5, when I became sick of the mechanical quality of early Nikon AF lenses. At the time I believed it to be optically superior and stuck to it for a while, in spite of being less than happy with the bodies and limited lens choice. But in retrospect my photography from that time did not have any common "brand look" that could distinguish them from my preceding Nikon F2/F4 period or the following Canon EF period.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, as I said previously I've gone back to R glass apart from a few choice Nikkors as I feel they make a difference to my particular style of picture taking.
it took a rest from them for 4 years to work out what I'd been missing however probably the main reason was wanting the ease of digital hence Nikon. Now with the ability to use R on Nikon I feel I get the best of both with SLR's.
 
sevo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying. That is not actually how I'd read what you wrote above.

We agree completely.
 
This is probably restating the obvious, but w/ my photos there is a very noticeable difference between Leica R glass and Nikon, and I've used some expensive Nikon lenses. People are driving up the price on the R lenses so they can shoot it on their DSLR's w/ an adapter. No one is buying adapters to use Nikon lenses on their DSLR's. This would seem clear as glass to me.
 
Last edited:
literiter said:
I've never met anyone yet, who can look at a slide or a print and tell me it was made by a Leica.

For that matter, I've never met anyone who can tell me they can look at a slide or a print and tell me it was taken on a Nikon or a Canon.
Click to expand...

I'm planning on staying out of this for the most part, since I started this thread to find out what others think, not what I think.

I can easily believe that few, if any, can ID the camera or lens just by seeing the picture. But my question is: If you own, or have extensively shot with both Nikon and Leica SLR glass, do you see a difference. Having shot a few thousand Velvia slides with Nikon lenses for years, before acquiring some Leica R gear, I can say this. When the Leica slides come back from processing, my reaction on seeing them is almost always "oh, wow, look at that." I have a sort of mental database formed around the Nikon slides. When I see my Leica slides, something in me goes, "Oh, that's different."

But I'm not sure I can describe the difference too well. Hence, my question: what do you see?
 
I use a 35mm and 80mm R ROM on a 5DmkII, also EF, OM, Zeiss and Takumars.
I am more "wowed" by the R glass than Canon glass I use mainly when I need autofocus.
I prefer a good picture with a Canon lens over a bad one with a Leica lens, so in the end it doesn't really matter as long as the pictures are good ...
 
Rob-F said:
I'm planning on staying out of this for the most part, since I started this thread to find out what others think, not what I think.

I can easily believe that few, if any, can ID the camera or lens just by seeing the picture. But my question is: If you own, or have extensively shot with both Nikon and Leica SLR glass, do you see a difference. Having shot a few thousand Velvia slides with Nikon lenses for years, before acquiring some Leica R gear, I can say this. When the Leica slides come back from processing, my reaction on seeing them is almost always "oh, wow, look at that." I have a sort of mental database formed around the Nikon slides. When I see my Leica slides, something in me goes, "Oh, that's different."

But I'm not sure I can describe the difference too well. Hence, my question: what do you see?
Click to expand...

When I look through my assortment of Kodachrome and Ektachrome transparencies I can often tell you which camera I used for what shot; because occasionally I made a note or I remember the occasion. When I project these slides I do not see a signature that would identify one lens over another.

Just because I don't see something does in no way mean there isn't anything....what it means is; I don't see anything. When I scan my transparencies (CS9000) at a high resolution I see nothing to indicate a difference.

I gave up worrying about it a few years ago when I realized it really didn't matter. But I would not part with either my Leica or Nikon cameras in favor of the other.

I can tell the difference between my Rolleiflex negs and my Hasselblad negs because of the handy little notches on the Hassy negs. Leica should have notches.
 
well, interesting question!

Is or is not the best nikkor glass competing with Leica R glass?
For that matter is there a significantly cheaper SLR MF system that can compete with Leica R glass (I know Konica, Minolta and Pentax have their followers...)
 
Vilk said:
hmmm... is that a question or an answer? :cool:
Click to expand...

Well if it's a question then I actually have an answer.

no.

But not for the reason most people are discussing in this thread. IMO Nikon and Canon compete with each other and no one else. And they are mainly competing on consumer zooms, pro zooms and telephotos.

Even for the R series, that's not really what Leica was going for with their lens lineup as far as I could see.
 
FWIW - I always thought that - apart from signature, the biggest advantage Leica primes have is their ability to shoot clean wide open. I've only owned 2 Leica lenses and they don't count because one was a Summar and one is the lens on a compact Panny zoom (a fine, underrated/overlooked piece of glass btw.) but you don't have to own one to recognize this... just look at others pics. This is a real advantage. Worth the money? Perhaps to some... But I could see why. (I haven't reached this stage of addiction to photographic gear yet, due to my stubborn frugality...)

However, I swear, the cheap (by Leica standards anyway) plastic fantastic 35mm f1.8 DX lens Nikon puts out for their APS-C cameras is just absolutely great wide open. Sharp, flare is under control, contrast is good... This is the first lens I have where F1.8 is a working aperture and have zero qualms shooting at this ap. Leica wide-ap optical quality for peanuts imo... Others might turn their nose up because it doesn't have a distance scale, the build quality is no where near any of the primes of yesteryear, and the focus ring isn't "buttery smooth..." - Butchya know what?

Got a Nikon DX camera? Just get one. And I'm not the only one who raves...


Nikon Nikkor 35mm prime lens comparison
Verdict

The unassuming Nikkor AF-S DX 35/1.8G puts in a surprise performance here. It is the clear choice if you are a DX-shooter... The findings support that the DX 35/1.8G already earned a "highly recommended" from Gordon with an overall score of 87%.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/N...G_vs_35mm_f2D_vs_DX_35mm_f1-8G_compared.shtml

This lens is why I sold off most of my rangefinders and am down to two: an XA and a Fujica Compact Deluxe (both of which I absolutey love and will never part with...) I really can't see many lenses outperforming it - apart from signature preferences, at any price on a DX camera.
 
It's only on extremely rare occasion that I can identify a lens from a single picture. However, over the course of an entire roll, absolutely.

When two lenses from different brands are shot in an identical manner, with identical settings and in conditions that don't exploit a strength or weakness of either lens, then the results should be nearly identical.

However, each lens has a unique character which some photographers not only identify, but exploit. Which does explain my own bias in brands and models.

Ken
www.zone-10.com
 
Steve M. said:
This is probably restating the obvious, but w/ my photos there is a very noticeable difference between Leica R glass and Nikon, and I've used some expensive Nikon lenses. People are driving up the price on the R lenses so they can shoot it on their DSLR's w/ an adapter. No one is buying adapters to use Nikon lenses on their DSLR's. This would seem clear as glass to me.
Click to expand...


Leica has a monopoly on elitism, not quality. People are adapting Leica-R, in a lot of instances, because of imagined, or subjective 'advantages.' Sometimes, just to be different. Sometimes, just to muck around with another gadget. No one's adapting Nikon lenses to Leica bodies because there are no Leica digitals (current cameras), and no one buys an R-body for any reason other than to use a Leica lens. The bodies simply have no real advantages.

There's a lot of BS and voodoo associated with Leica. People will crow about the quantitative performance until it's pointed out that the MTFs don't correspond to the raves. The Leicaphile will then claim the Leica advantages, conveniently, can't be seen in charts.... Or, when a Nikon/Canon lens is soft(-er) at a certain aperture, it's inferior. When it's the Leica that's soft, it's non-clinical. Atmospheric. Or, it 'draws' in a more pleasing manner.....

I've owned Leica R7 and R8. I've had the 28 Elmarit (latest), 35 and 50mm summicrons and 80 Summilux. Among those, only the 28mm was superior to other lenses i compared, and even the 28 was only equal to the Contax 28. The 35 Summicron was no better than a Canon 35/2, and both were easily beaten by the 35L. The 50 Summicron was not better than the Canon 50/1.4, unless you want to compare apples to oranges and say that wide open it was better than the Canon wide open. But, when both were at F2, i preferred the Canon, actually. The 80 Summilux was trounced by the 85L.

I believe there are imaging qualities that people may LIKE from the R lenses, but it doesn't mean they're superior. I like a particular shot i have from the 35 Summicron. Nice bokeh and such. But, that's not brand-exclusive. When people get a nice result from a Leica lens, they tend to apply it to the marque. I've used Canon, Nikon, Contax, Leica-M, Leica-R, etc. in 35mm and have pictures i like from each. In no way can i say one brand is more responsible for better images than the others. They're just different, and each lens is different. If there were an empirically, universally superior platform, we'd all be idiots for using something else.

In general, i don't like Nikon's current primes. So, in that respect, i'd rather use Leica R. But, that's just re: AF lenses. After spending thousands on such my current favorite lens is a Nikon 50mm 1.8 Series-E for which i paid about $35. It all depends on what you want to shoot and the imaging qualities you most value.

As often as i've read some comment about a Leica lens having richer, more saturated color, i'll look back at the Leica shots i like most and they'll be subtle, with lower contrast and saturation. It's kind of ridiculous to make these broad claims and assumptions. If you only want to shoot one kind of subject, one way, with one film - sure, try to match the lens to the purpose. Try. But, that assumes you're so single-minded that you can/want to ignore all other options, variations, opportunities.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting discussion as to what makes one lens so called 'better' than another. What does better mean? sharper, better bokeh? etc etc.
All I know is that when shot wide open, the Leica R lenses I have are sharper with nicer smoother oof transitions than most other lenses I've used in 35mm format. They seem to jump the point of focus out at you. Well they do to me anyway and that's what matters to me.
I agree with you on the Nikon Af primes as most are soft wide open.
Nikon have never done a 35mm lens I've liked.
I've posted before that the Nikon 50mm F2 Ai is as good as the 50mm R Summicron in regard to sharpness wide open however the images just don't look like my Summicron ones nor should they as it's a Nikon lens.
The only Nikkor lens that I have and consider to give me comparible images to Leica M or R is my 24-70 2.8
It has amazing sharpness, great bokeh and very smooth oof. A gem of a lens but big.
Each to their own as they say, find what works for you and try to get the best pics out of your choices as you can. Isn't that what it's all about?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom