My Leicas don’t care what lens….a universal truth, right?

[boojum]

The body is important, yes, but other than set exposure and shutter speed and focus just what does it do? The lens sees. I have tried a few lenses on my M9 and have settled on the Cooke Amotal as the finest 50 mm that I have. The close second is a Canon. I have no Leica lenses as the cost for the minimal improvement was too high. The Amotal does well enough for me. The CV's are bright and sharp but a bit harsh, to me. My '57 J8 is a close finisher to the Amotal. So it us obvious I favor the old "oil painting" lenses over the current "acrylic painting" lenses. The Amotal works its wonders on a Pixii and also on a Sony A7M III. It is the lens.

Here is a link to another board where I have posted two photos, first an Amotal, second the Sony/Zeiss 55 mm f/1.8. Taken minutes apart. https://cameraderie.org/threads/cooke-amotal-ltm-2-f-2-0.53672/#post-478801

It is the lens. To see this in cinema watch Kubrik's Barry Lyndon.

 

[kshapero]

All lenses have a unique signature, so yes it does matter. But having said that a lot of non Leica brand lenses have a unique look. Take the new CV Heliar 50/1.5 as a case in point.

 

[Richard G]

The ZM C Sonnar on film and digital taught me more than any other single lens.

But taking photographs is about seeing without a camera at all and then using a tool that just gets out of the way. For me scale focus and RF focus and minimal controls is everything that's important about Leica and I don't need one Leica lens to get that.

 

[David Hughes]

Years ago I suggested that it would make more sense to put a Leica lens on a FED/Zorki body instead of the other way round. It was not a popular suggestion but I think having that red dot or the magic word "LEICA" on show is important and the lens isn't to those people.

Having said that I'll add that in the real world - or off forum - I still think that printing 4" x 6" and shooting at f/8 a lot of fudge is hidden. Not using a tripod adds to the deception too. Also in the real world the subject is more important that anything else; think of Bert Hardy's famous shot of two girls that was taken with a box camera*.

FWIW, years ago when they existed I asked the local lab how they could write out the chit before I spoke and said what I wanted and they told me I was their only customer who didn't ask for 4"x6" prints. So I reckon you should only argue about lens quality if you are doing it for a living and an exact record is needed or else you are going to do something big like 8"x12" I'd add slides to that list but no one knows that they are these days...

Regards, David

* Link:- https://photomuserh.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/bert-hardy-do-you-need-an-expensive-camera/

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

The body is important, yes, but other than set exposure and shutter speed and focus just what does it do?

Spends time in my hand… I spend much more time *taking* photos than *looking* at photos, and the tactile experience of using a camera to take photos is a significant part of why I enjoy photography. Hence why I spend a lot more time using my 2.8D and M2 than my Z6, despite the latter having much, much better image quality.

 

[joe bosak]

The lens matters except where it doesn't. Same with the body. At a minimum they have to fit together.

If you want a particular field of view, depth of field, or shutter speed, and can or can not zoom with your feet, or you like the way some sensor or lens renders, or any of it has some sentimental value for you, that all matters too and affects the choice of tools.... but only if you're the kind of person who chooses or needs to choose tools deliberately for particular purposes, and who has a variety of gear to choose from, and who feels like choosing what to use. Some of us are like that. Sometimes.

If right now you don't care, and think your Leica with any old lens you can fit on it is good enough - well it is, for you.

I only have one lens that fits my only Leica, it's good enough for the Leica because it has to be and I have no interest in buying more such lenses. But for that's because (for me) the usage envelope of the Leica is quite narrow, due to personal circumstances and tastes.

One thing I have pondered, given my M8 RF needed adjustment and the depth of field at 35/1.4 is thin, is whether Leicas (or rangefinders in general) were designed in the first place to be accurate for paper thin focus, or whether the expectation was that photos would mostly be taken at f8, so that minor inaccuracies in focus weren't expected to matter.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

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.

I did not expect much from my screw mount 1956 9cm Elmar f/4. But I've been pleasantly surprised by it, even before cleaning some internal haze. It may be even better, now. Obviously there are sharper 90mm lenses available today. Perhaps it's no Zeiss Sonnar, but I have no plans to stop using mine.

 

[cboy]

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.

As cold hard objects of desire Leicas' don't bear emotions. It's often the user that feels inadequacy in their equipment.
Take for an example an M11 with 60mp. Whilst I don't own one I'd imagine a owner of one would want to utilise the full extent of their camera so as to pixel peep the sh$t out of it right. So he or she purchases the latest apo lenses, but then realises there's no character to a picture perfect rendition. So they buy a 'character' lens to take the edge off, which provides a 'filmic' rendering....c'est la vie The point is as long as the lens, whether it's a vintage, modern, uber expensive or cheap, validates the user ideals then that's all that matters in the end.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

My Sony don’t care what lens….a universal truth, right? :angel:

All the best,
Mike

P.S. Life is not to short for cheap wine. 😉

 

[571514m3]

I did not expect much from my screw mount 1956 9cm Elmar f/4. But I've been pleasantly surprised by it, even before cleaning some internal haze. It may be even better, now. Obviously there are sharper 90mm lenses available today. Perhaps it's no Zeiss Sonnar, but I have no plans to stop using mine.

That Elmar is a wonderful lens, as is the only slightly younger 2.8/90 Elmarit! Yes the frame in the viewfinder is smaller than that of the 35mm but it is easy to focus and the results often surprise. I often take it traveling, so small and lightweight!

On pixels: they are obviously important but only to a point. Someone once told me you should sit at a distance of approx 5 times the diagonal of a TV screen to get the most out of the picture. To me that has always the distance for viewing a print. Screens seem to seduce us to look at pixels, just because we can and not because it makes sense. Or so it seems to me. I've noticed that wide open shots are sometimes off-focus, say a portrait is not spot on the iris but just off. Looking at the print it seems to not be noticeable, and no one seems to complain either.

 

[jsrockit]

The body is important, yes, but other than set exposure and shutter speed and focus just what does it do? The lens sees. [/I].

It allows one to frame content... the most important aspect of photography. The lens cannot see without the body telling it how to see i.e. focus, exposure, etc. You can put a pinhole in front of the camera and still make photos. With just a lens, you cannot.

 

[boojum]

It allows one to frame content... the most important aspect of photography. The lens cannot see without the body telling it how to see i.e. focus, exposure, etc. You can put a pinhole in front of the camera and still make photos. With just a lens, you cannot.

Regardless, it is at the service of the lens.

 

[CMur12]

Regardless, it is at the service of the lens.

I agree with jsrockit that the body and the lens are at the service of each other.

I would agree with you that as long as the body is light-tight, has accurate shutter speeds, accurate finder framing, accurate focusing capability, interfaces with the lens, and is reasonably ergonomic, the brand and the price of the body beyond these basics don't matter. However, the lens is not capable of these functions by itself.

- Murray

 

[Archiver]

If were' talking about whether a Leica body 'needs' to have a Leica lens on it, it depends on the desires and needs of the shooter. I mostly use Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander, with the occasional foray into Canon screw mount. With the M9, the sensor has a unique character that is expressed through the lens, so it doesn't really matter what lens is used, apart from those with extreme red edge or corner smearing. You just select the lens that gives the look you want. I'm happy as anything with the Distagon 35 ZM on my M9, it is now the lens I use 90% of the time. Should it be a Leica Summilux 35 just because it's a Leica body? Heck no, not for me. It is difficult to imagine a lens and camera combination with the same kind of 3D pop and translucent clarity as the M9 and Distagon.

If the body doesn't matter, then why is there so much talk of how a camera feels and operates? Why have SLR's and DSLR's developed from semi rectangular blocks of metal to curved ergonomic grips? Why does the Leica M feel so good in the hand for many people?

And if the lens doesn't matter, then why all the talk about lens rendering, chromatic aberration, distortion, bokeh, sharpness, saturation and contrast, etcetera? It comes down to what the user wants in their photography.

I just spent the morning walking around with the Panasonic S5 and Minolta 35-70 Macro. Gosh, I love the output but it's frustrating to get used to. The EVF isn't really meant for fine manual focus, the lens is a 70 in fully retracted position, and shooting at 70 means zooming all the way out. Also, the grip is less comfortable than the Panasonic G9, which I absolutely love. Had they made the S5's grip like the G9, it would have been a wonder.

 

[Wenge]

i think Joe Walsh almost said 'the smoker you get the player you sing'
and i think when not looking for a shot, it shows up when least prepared

 

[Richard G]

i think Joe Walsh almost said 'the smoker you get the player you sing'
and i think when not looking for a shot, it shows up when least prepared

Where else but RFF. I’m going to be enjoying that one all day.

 

[boojum]

If were' talking about whether a Leica body 'needs' to have a Leica lens on it, it depends on the desires and needs of the shooter. I mostly use Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander, with the occasional foray into Canon screw mount. With the M9, the sensor has a unique character that is expressed through the lens, so it doesn't really matter what lens is used, apart from those with extreme red edge or corner smearing. You just select the lens that gives the look you want. I'm happy as anything with the Distagon 35 ZM on my M9, it is now the lens I use 90% of the time. Should it be a Leica Summilux 35 just because it's a Leica body? Heck no, not for me. It is difficult to imagine a lens and camera combination with the same kind of 3D pop and translucent clarity as the M9 and Distagon.

If the body doesn't matter, then why is there so much talk of how a camera feels and operates? Why have SLR's and DSLR's developed from semi rectangular blocks of metal to curved ergonomic grips? Why does the Leica M feel so good in the hand for many people?

And if the lens doesn't matter, then why all the talk about lens rendering, chromatic aberration, distortion, bokeh, sharpness, saturation and contrast, etcetera? It comes down to what the user wants in their photography.

I just spent the morning walking around with the Panasonic S5 and Minolta 35-70 Macro. Gosh, I love the output but it's frustrating to get used to. The EVF isn't really meant for fine manual focus, the lens is a 70 in fully retracted position, and shooting at 70 means zooming all the way out. Also, the grip is less comfortable than the Panasonic G9, which I absolutely love. Had they made the S5's grip like the G9, it would have been a wonder.

I've had good luck with a J8, Canon 50 f/1.8 and especially good luck with the Cooke Amotal. It imbues even my worst with great color, a soft glow and amazing but not grating sharpness. I really do like the M9/Amotal combo. I've been down the M9 CCD discussion threads enough. I'll just say I favor the camera, along with the M8.2. The M240 is nice but my prejudice favors those two with the CCD sensor.

I have yet to do much with the Amotal on an M240 but it plays nice with an A7M III.

There's a number of variables in this game. They are not all equally weighted. I'd say the lens is more important. Were it otherwise we'd be using a variety of bodies with one lens rather than the other way around.

You may not agree. ;o)

 

[Einstein]

I had a Rolls Royce once, put retreads on it and it never drove the same again. I wonder why ?

I cooked Boeuf En Daub once, used rat instead of beef, it did not taste good. I wonder why ?

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I picked up a LTM J-3 from a US seller, cheap listed as rough focus. A 1964 ZOMZ barrel in a KMZ focus mount. Focus and RF cam where way off, needed an extra 0.75mm shim. Cleaned and lubed the mount, came out exceptionally smooth. Decided it was easier to put a 1952 KMZ optical block into the KMZ focus mount and put the perfect-glass ZOMZ into the Contax/Kiev mount. Much easier to re-index the KMZ aperture ring as it has threads. It came out really nice. The actual focal length of the KMZ must be very close to the 51.6mm Leica standard, focus is perfect wide-open from 0.9m to infinity.

^ Wide Open on the M8.

At F2.8

 

[steveyork]

I had a Rolls Royce once, put retreads on it and it never drove the same again. I wonder why ?

I cooked Boeuf En Daub once, used rat instead of beef, it did not taste good. I wonder why ?

Ha, ha, I want to thank you for believing that, because that attitude has allowed me to unload a lot of Leica stuff over the years at overinflated prices. 🙂.

The third party m mount lenses today are not "retreads" or "rats." Same is true for Canon, Nikon lenses from the 50's, ect.

I once read an equipment list of a magnum photographer for the mid-50's. There was some Leica stuff, but most of it was cannon. A good photographer will take great pictures not matter the equipment, much of it depending on light, composition and environment. Then factor in differences in film, developers, formulas, times ect., and equipment takes on even less relevance.