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

CK Dexter Haven said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, have to disagree with you on two points: The S2 is a current digital SLR from Leica and there are a number of people here using R body Leica cameras because we like them! Rather over-broad statements. Other than that, carry on...:)
 
I haven't had the experience with different SLR systems that many here have. But I have used Contax SLRs pretty extensively, with a range of lenses, and for color work I liked them a lot. But I mainly shoot B&W, so after a brief flirtation with Nikon as well, I opted in the end for an R7. along with the 24 Elmarit and the 35 and 50 Summicrons.

I have no idea whether the R lenses are sharper or more flare-resistant or better wide open than other lens lines. All I know is that I find the images I get very pleasing. And despite what some here have said, I think the R7 is a superb camera. Have I been seduced by the Leica mystique? Maybe, but when I used to shoot with rangefinders, I didn't have any Leicas (aside from the modern 35 Summarit). These sorts of choices are down to intangibles that I suspect most of us find hard to explain. I know I do.
 
depends on the Nikon lens. Many have severe distortion. Leica lens very rarely do, and if so, it is generally not severe.
 
For an amateur like myself, Ii would be very educational if someone posts examples of what and how, with arrows or circles delineating particular point of argument on sample photos. Perhaps the difference is too subtle to see on screen and requires 20x30 prints.
 
• The Noct-Nikkor is not a good lens to use comparatively in the land of superfasts for being overpriced.
• If you pay attention to such things, most testing of very fast SLR lenses has not found the nikon to be the best of the lot. The Pentax 50mm f1.2 is usually found to be the sharpest wide open, the Minolta MD Rokkor 58mm f1.2 has the most pleasing overall qualities, the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.2 is without question the smallest and lightest, and the Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC is excellent at infinity. From test shots, my opinion is that all of these lenses are probably preferable to the Nikon unless you hate coma, with any consideration to price. Like you REALLY hate coma. Of these I personally own the Minolta, and find it to be excellent. For the others, I am just passing on what I have gleaned from others, and what I can see from samples. if you offered to trade me a noct-nikkor for my rokkor with a no sell clause, I wouldnt take you up on it, at any rate.

in the end, I want to be careful to stay out of the nikon vs leica fight, honestly. my purpose is only to provide as accurate a narration as possible.
 
Last edited:
Generally speaking, i'd agree with the idea that Leica glass, on average, is better than Nikon glass, on average. At least, I've been more likely to be disappointed with Nikon lenses than with Leica lenses. (at least in the RF world).
But I do a lot of shooting with a 24-70/2.8. And that hefty chunk of glass is just an amazing performer. I'm not saying it beats every Leica lens in the 24-75 range. But it sure beats a lot of them.
Of course it has its limitations in that it only opens to f 2.8.
 
tbarker13 said:
Generally speaking, i'd agree with the idea that Leica glass, on average, is better than Nikon glass, on average. At least, I've been more likely to be disappointed with Nikon lenses than with Leica lenses. (at least in the RF world).
But I do a lot of shooting with a 24-70/2.8. And that hefty chunk of glass is just an amazing performer. I'm not saying it beats every Leica lens in the 24-75 range. But it sure beats a lot of them.
Of course it has its limitations in that it only opens to f 2.8.
Click to expand...

If i had to sell all my lenses and keep just one then the 24-70 2.8 would be it. I wish I had bought one when they first came out!
 
sanmich said:
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...)
Click to expand...

Sure there are.

Most of the Zeiss lenses made for the Contax/Yashica mount either matches or exceeds the Leica R glass from the same era (same situation as with their current M-mount rangefinder lenses). The lenses are very large though.

And, of course, you have to consider Olympus OM System (Zuiko) lenses as well. Across the range, nowhere as consistently excellent as the Leica R lenses (for example, the two systems' 35mm f/2.0 lenses are worlds apart) but the OM system does have a couple of gems that are actually considered to be superior to any equivalent:
  • 21mm f/2.0 - same performance as the legendary Zeiss Distagon, but less than half the size, a stop faster, and less distortion. Leica has no equivalent.
  • 50mm f/2.0 Macro - has a unique 9-element formulation that has been shown to be superior to any other SLR 50mm. The only 50mm that can basically excite Moire on a Canon 5D MkII sensor wide open at infinity across the field.
  • 250mm f/2.0 - longer focal length and faster aperture, but phsyically smaller, than the other "equivalents" (there aren't really any), and superior performance (at the time, was tested, amongst others by NASA, as the highest-performance 35mm lens in existence). Only the latest (2010 release) Canon EF 200/2.0 and 300/2.8 teles can match this lens. Of course, at this level of optical performance, one is splitting hairs between the top Olympus/Leica/Canon/Nikon/Zeiss teles, they are all excellent. The Zuiko just went a little bit further (longer and faster). The real closest (Nikon 300mm f/2.0) is a much older design, and is a gigantic lens by comparison.
Zuikos lenses and bodies are *much* smaller than their Leica R equivalents. Most of them are more "fragile", however, except for the 250/2.0 which is made to be unbreakable.

There are a couple of Nikkor SLR lenses that are superior to the equivalent Leica R lenses, but I think these all fall in the "super wide" or "super telephoto" range. Leica's Niche has always been excellent normal-ish lenses.

Lastly, after all this babbling - lens performance doesn't really matter, haven't you noticed? Though my Leica M3 always seems to have superior technical performance to my OM system (or Leica R, for that matter), I use the latter so much more, because I take better photos with it.

It's the enjoyment of the process, and the artistic merit of the end results, that count.
 
Direct comparisons

Direct comparisons

FWIW you might find this of interest.

I used to teach "Fashion Photography", an elective photography class. We would shoot usually in the studio with Norman strobes during two sessions and then have critique at the third. Students would choose 8 to 10 of their favorites and put them in the slide trays. Through the years I had them using various 100 speed chrome films but they all used the same film during any particular semester.

The students used a variety of Canon and Nikon lenses except one man with a Leicaflex and a 90mm Summicron or Elmarit (forget which) When his slides hit the screen I and many others in the class could immediately tell they were "Stephan's" and not one of the other dozen or more participants. At this late date I couldn't accurately choose adjectives to describe the difference but it was there, not enough to make me dump my F100's, but discernible. To be clear, this difference was positive in that the consensus was they looked "better", not worse, than the Canikons.

Same film, same subjects, same location, same lights, same E-6 processor.

As this was a popular elective for photography majors, Stephan took it several times over the course of 5 or 6 years with similar results.
 
^That can be explained by the placebo effect.

I'm sure many members here have both of these lenses, someone should post images of the same subject under similar light and find out if people can spot the Leica or Nikon lenses... From my own experience, even the most experiencing won't be able to tell the difference, even if was in large prints.
 
GSNfan said:
^That can be explained by the placebo effect.

I'm sure many members here have both of these lenses, someone should post images of the same subject under similar light and find out if people can spot the Leica or Nikon lenses... From my own experience, even the most experiencing won't be able to tell the difference, even if was in large prints.
Click to expand...

Now, honestly, how is that the placebo effect?
Slides are put on the screen. If the students were able to pick out shots taken by the Leica glass there is a difference (even if "the most experiencing" weren't able to tell the difference).
All other conditions remained equal except for the glass in that scenario, and it's been replicated.
 
WalterM said:
Now, honestly, how is that the placebo effect?
Slides are put on the screen. If the students were able to pick out shots taken by the Leica glass there is a difference (even if "the most experiencing" weren't able to tell the difference).
All other conditions remained equal except for the glass in that scenario, and it's been replicated.
Click to expand...

The students, did not pick the images in a blind test. They knew the pictures shot by "Stephen" the Leica owner, and thus when looking at his images, they "expected" better image quality due to Leica name - hence the placebo.

That does not say Leica is better or worse than Nikon, what it implies is that if you 'expect' to see quality in an image, you'll see it.

Read the famous Canon G10 vs. Medium format digital test at Luminous Landscapes. Even professional and highly experienced photographers could not tell the difference in prints when they didn't knew which one was G10 and which one medium format digital before hand.
 
GSNfan said:
The students, did not pick the images in a blind test. They knew the pictures shot by "Stephen" the Leica owner, and thus when looking at his images, they "expected" better image quality due to Leica name - hence the placebo.

That does not say Leica is better or worse than Nikon, what it implies is that if you 'expect' to see quality in an image, you'll see it.

Read the famous Canon G10 vs. Medium format digital test at Luminous Landscapes. Even professional and highly experienced photographers could not tell the difference in prints when they didn't knew which one was G10 and which one medium format digital before hand.
Click to expand...

Things get stranger and stranger. Perhaps, like polling, the devil is in the details.
 
Depends on the lens.
R-Summicron 50, I can tell the difference in wide-open, shallow DOF rendering. It's super smooth.

R-Elmarit 35/2.8, however, I can't tell. My beat-up Nikkor-S 35/2.8 pre-AI lens is sharper and renders more details.

So far I can't justify getting a 35mm Summicron (let alone Summilux), so I don't know about those.
 
"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.
 
Does anyone have any comparison shots. At the moment my manual film SLR is an FM2 with a 35mm 2.5 E and a 105mm 2.5 (old sonnar version). How would they compare with a 35mm 2.8 Elmarit R and a 90mm 2.8 Elmarit R. I ask because my local camera store has both lenses and I am quite tempted to try them out.
 
Stuart John said:
Does anyone have any comparison shots. At the moment my manual film SLR is an FM2 with a 35mm 2.5 E and a 105mm 2.5 (old sonnar version). How would they compare with a 35mm 2.8 Elmarit R and a 90mm 2.8 Elmarit R. I ask because my local camera store has both lenses and I am quite tempted to try them out.
Click to expand...


Ah, both lenses on my wish list... Memphis has both IIRC...maybe check with him for some recent images.

:)
 
OK, I would like to ask:
what would be the most Leicaesque (yeah, that's a word) Nikkors in the 28/35/50/90 FL?
I hesitate between the micro nikkors (2.8 and 3.5) and the f/2 AI for the normal, but have no idea about the 35's (2.8, 2, 1.4?) or the teles.
 
sanmich said:
OK, I would like to ask:
what would be the most Leicaesque (yeah, that's a word) Nikkors in the 28/35/50/90 FL?
I hesitate between the micro nikkors (2.8 and 3.5) and the f/2 AI for the normal, but have no idea about the 35's (2.8, 2, 1.4?) or the teles.
Click to expand...

The real snag is that I can't even define what Leicaesque would be in terms of R lenses. At least those I had in the early nineties were a very inconsistent bunch, with no common characteristic across all of them. Which does not mean that Canon or Nikon were any more consistent - SLR lenses were where the money was, and all makers that had not given up competing tried to move along with the optical fashion of the year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom