571514m3
Established
My Leicas don’t care what lens….a universal truth, right? In fact it is worse, my Fed2 (the one I bought on the bridge flea market in Tiblisi) also does not care what lens is on it. There is a thread (TTartisan 50 f2 $70 and 35 f2 APO…) asking how a lens can be so cheap. It reminded me of a thought I had for some time: Seems that any lens I put on my Leicas is perfect. And with that I mean anything from poorly regarded Elmar 90 to old Jupiters with a cheap adapter ring right up to my old 2.8 Summaron or modern 2/28 Summicron.
In recent years I often look at my lenses and without consideration for optical quality pick one to use. And then the magic happens, things work out and images beautiful. Different yes, but still beautiful. Seems that there is no relationship between the cost or prestige of a lens (or body) and the appeal of resulting photos, but rather care and consideration for subject and lens.
When I had my first full frame M I was intrigues by lens coding. And I gave up on that very quickly because I did not want to have the body do stuff the lens did not understand - if that makes sense to you. Now I just enjoy that I live in the best of all times, where a wonderful digital body complements my old analogue and they can share a small number of not outrageously costly lenses. And I like the idea that photographers new and old have incredible choice with the curious proliferation of affordable lenses, old and new.
In recent years I often look at my lenses and without consideration for optical quality pick one to use. And then the magic happens, things work out and images beautiful. Different yes, but still beautiful. Seems that there is no relationship between the cost or prestige of a lens (or body) and the appeal of resulting photos, but rather care and consideration for subject and lens.
When I had my first full frame M I was intrigues by lens coding. And I gave up on that very quickly because I did not want to have the body do stuff the lens did not understand - if that makes sense to you. Now I just enjoy that I live in the best of all times, where a wonderful digital body complements my old analogue and they can share a small number of not outrageously costly lenses. And I like the idea that photographers new and old have incredible choice with the curious proliferation of affordable lenses, old and new.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Sounds familiar, but....
Fed-2 won't do well with non-FSU lenses, comparing to FSU lenses on Leica.
$499 APO MIC is huge, it will block VF. It is also heavy as brick, nose diving.
I let go to all Leitz 50 mm and keeping Canon 50 1.8 and J-3. Just because I don't use 50mm often.
If 50mm would be my more used length, I would still keep one of the Crons. Their colors rendering is really great and build is better than soft metal on ZM.
Between J-12, Nokton 35 1.4 II and Summarit-M 35 2.5 I prefer Leica on Leica.
Better handling and on bw film dr prints it could really stand out and above.
Even if it has more corner distortions than J-12 from fifties and with three digits SN.
On digital M CV CS 21/4 LTM gives uneven corners color cast sometimes. It is known to have many not well centered copies.
I have tried many lenses. Keeping only one Leica made for now.
I would like to change CV CS 21/4 LTM to issues free lens on digital M.
Most likely it is going to be 21 f1.5 MIC lens. My digital M doesn't have high ISOs.
Fed-2 won't do well with non-FSU lenses, comparing to FSU lenses on Leica.
$499 APO MIC is huge, it will block VF. It is also heavy as brick, nose diving.
I let go to all Leitz 50 mm and keeping Canon 50 1.8 and J-3. Just because I don't use 50mm often.
If 50mm would be my more used length, I would still keep one of the Crons. Their colors rendering is really great and build is better than soft metal on ZM.
Between J-12, Nokton 35 1.4 II and Summarit-M 35 2.5 I prefer Leica on Leica.
Better handling and on bw film dr prints it could really stand out and above.
Even if it has more corner distortions than J-12 from fifties and with three digits SN.
On digital M CV CS 21/4 LTM gives uneven corners color cast sometimes. It is known to have many not well centered copies.
I have tried many lenses. Keeping only one Leica made for now.
I would like to change CV CS 21/4 LTM to issues free lens on digital M.
Most likely it is going to be 21 f1.5 MIC lens. My digital M doesn't have high ISOs.
zuiko85
Veteran
I feel much the same, most lenses are good enough. Some folks even get (or make) a pinhole body cap for their Leica. So…yeah, if you are happy with the results with whatever lens you use, no worries. An interesting article, now 20 years old but still relevant is a piece written by Mike Johnston. Look up “The 50mm lens and Metaphysical Doubt”, I think that is the title.
But be assured, many folks have strong opinions and preferences about lenses, and my opinion, or preference expressed here, is worth only what you paid for it.
But be assured, many folks have strong opinions and preferences about lenses, and my opinion, or preference expressed here, is worth only what you paid for it.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Why would a camera body care what lens is on it? Is their something special about a Leica body in this regard?
Some people think putting anything other than a Leica lens on a Leica body is a waste. This thread is saying, it isn't. That's how I understood.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Oh. I would have never guessed. Thanks.
Brian Legge
Veteran
The logic is generally:
- Bodies are irrelevant to make the image.
- The lens matters.
- The only reason to spend a large amount on a body is to use a particular family of lenses.
- Therefore using a cheap lens on a Leica is a pointless and the photographer wasted their money on the body.
The whole thing is silly.
- Bodies are irrelevant to make the image.
- The lens matters.
- The only reason to spend a large amount on a body is to use a particular family of lenses.
- Therefore using a cheap lens on a Leica is a pointless and the photographer wasted their money on the body.
The whole thing is silly.
My computers care about the devices I hook up to them. I either have to find and install the correct drivers, or write one.
The same way as my Leica RF bodies requiring the lens be shimmed correctly for the rangefinder. If the RF and lens do not agree on focus, you have some work to do. Shimming a lens is like writing a device driver.
KMZ_56018xx_1 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
KMZ_5604078_ZOMZ_Mount_5_focus_RF_Agree_distance_closeenough by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
The same way as my Leica RF bodies requiring the lens be shimmed correctly for the rangefinder. If the RF and lens do not agree on focus, you have some work to do. Shimming a lens is like writing a device driver.
KMZ_56018xx_1 by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrKMZ_5604078_ZOMZ_Mount_5_focus_RF_Agree_distance_closeenough by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
oldwino
Well-known
Older Leicas, and film cameras in general, don’t care. But modern digital cameras correct some distortion and other aberrations so they need to know which lens is attached.
aizan
Veteran
This thread is on point! Gatekeeping attitudes like that are horrible for the community.
Tell me you have consumerism issues without telling me you have consumerism issues!
Tell me you have consumerism issues without telling me you have consumerism issues!
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Is that because the lens was not made for a Leica or because of poor manufacturing tolerances?
It can be a number of issues. The Jupiter lenses are made to a different standard, and requires some fine-tuning. On top of that: the Jupiters had a +/-1% tolerance for focal length. The buyer was expected to bring the lens to the local shop to have the lens "zeroed" for the camera it was being used on.
The classic lenses made for Canon and other LTM manufacturers, the manufacturer made assumptions on how the film sat in the camera. The Konica lenses made for their M-Mount body were set to a slightly different flange distance.
Digital cameras- the sensor is flat, and has microlenses to deal with. Everyone can pixel peep. This requires a tighter tolerance. For monochrome digital cameras, fine-tuning with respect to the filter in use is required. I set my Sonnar lenses out an extra 0.02mm for use with an Orange filter.
Exactly...but I'm the complete opposite! The body matters to me since my hands are connected to it. Most lenses are good enough.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
That makes more sense. The lens doesn't matter to the camera body, but both the lens and the camera body matter to the photographer.
Richard G
Veteran
Orville Robertson here many years ago dismissed the ‘it’s all about the glass‘ notion and used any M compatible lens on his M5. For him Leica RF was all about the body, the camera. He was so right and this is so obvious and still the single most important thing I learnt after coming to RFF. And it saw me buying a few Zeiss lenses, eg the C Sonnar instead of thinking about the <<‘lux ASPH>>.
zuiko85
Veteran
Brian brings up some good points, but how many of us have his knowledge, and more importantly, his mechanical skills. Certainly not me, and a lot of other commentators on this thread I’d guess. The extent of my “fine tuning” a lens is shimming the adapters I buy to fit legacy lenses to my m4:3 mirrorless. I’ve probably bought 15 of those and all, except 1, were too thin and let the lens focus past infinity. Fortunately I can usually get them close enough. What do I expect for $9-$16?
The cheap offerings from 7Artisans and TTArtisan and Pergear in mirrorless mounts all focus past infinity also and need to be shimmed. In my experience their marked focusing and DoF scales are also pure fiction. Don’t know how well calibrated the M mount lenses they make are. My guess is that they would have to be checked before use also.
The cheap offerings from 7Artisans and TTArtisan and Pergear in mirrorless mounts all focus past infinity also and need to be shimmed. In my experience their marked focusing and DoF scales are also pure fiction. Don’t know how well calibrated the M mount lenses they make are. My guess is that they would have to be checked before use also.
Everyone should remember that I write software for a living... But I've been fixing cameras since I was 11, a LONG time ago...
How many programmers does it take to shim a lens....
How many programmers does it take to shim a lens....
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I definitely don't have his mechanical skills but I have good enough critical/analytical ability to know which lenses work in a scenario and which don't.
None of my Soviet lenses - not even the J12 - perform as well on a Leica or non-FSU Leica-derived body as they do on a FED or Zorki.
I have a Zorki 5 that was recalibrated to the Leica LTM standard (it's pretty easy to do, thanks to the way the focusing cam in the lens mount is designed). As a result, that'll work better with a Summicron than with a Jupiter.
I know some lenses look like a pig wide-open, and others look terrible at the other end of the scale.
It's one thing to say "all lenses have value", but it's more important to know exactly which tool is right for the task at hand.
Richard G
Veteran
I’ll stray as far as Voigtlander as I’m no expert. My 25/ 4 VC flares more easily than others report. The ZM 21 4.5 with film is fine and purple fringing in the M9 I can live with or fix. For black and white in film or digital it’s fantastic. If I had something riskier I’d be curious to try it. You could go mad and try Leica‘s own 90 Thambar of course.
