What's with the Leica glass character?

[dave lackey]

Just out of boredom, I was visiting the black and white images posted in a well-known SLR site and they are so bland! I was stunned after spending so much time with the B&W images on this forum...

Outside of a silky effect on a waterfall or what have you, they all look the same. When I came back to this forum, it was amazing the subtle differences in character between the Leica images and the SLR images.

So, what's with the character? What is it that makes me want to get several Leica lenses for my photography and nothing else will do?🙄

 

[Nh3]

Why is it that ones own kids are the most adorable children in the world? While other people might find them ugly and annoying.

This answers your question.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Just out of boredom, I was visiting the black and white images posted in a well-known SLR site and they are so bland

You could have the best pen in the whole wide world and still it won't prevent you from having bad handwriting or bad spelling (or bad grammar).

It's all how you use it and how you process (and post) the images.

 

[dave lackey]

You could have the best pen in the whole wide world and still it won't prevent you from having bad handwriting or bad spelling (or bad grammar).

It's all how you use it and how you process (and post) the images.

Yes, what I am seeing is subtle but the character in different Leica lenses is different from other Leica lenses. When I use my Nikon lenses, outside of the S3 2000 50 1.4 Millenium lens, I really can't get the same character. Whether it be swirly bokey, smooth bokeh, the famous "glow", or the orbs of light, I have been smitten by these lenses and the resulting images.

So much so, that for my personal photography, nothing short of the Leica system will do. Am I losing my mind?

Wait...don't answer that!🙄

 

[mh2000]

I don't agree at all. for years I would come across photos in museums and galleries that were obviously shot with a Leica (which I hadn't owned)... being poor most of the time I just shrugged and said, "my creativity will make up for the difference," which is mostly correct, but there aways was that *something* ... at least to my eyes.

Why is it that ones own kids are the most adorable children in the world? While other people might find them ugly and annoying.

This answers your question.

 

[januaryman]

"De gustibus non est disputandum" What else is there to say?

[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]

 

[icebear]

Besides that evaluating internet posts on a screen is not the most accurate method ... maybe shallow dof in pictures shot with Leica glass wide open vs a standard zoom 3.8- 5.6 will cause an obvious difference.
As Gabriel M.A. mentioned processing/posting is a major factor that will make it almost academic to discuss the character of a lens unless exactly comparable parameters had been applied - but some gearheads will put a veto to that 😉.

 

[Fred Burton]

Yeah, the Leica lenses are so outstanding that pros have been using primarily Leica for lenses for 40 years...wait, that's not right.

I've never understood the religious fervor over Leica lenses. I have several. Some are good, some are not so. Just like Nikon or Canon or Olympus.

 

[funkaoshi]

So, what's with the character?

It's called confirmation bias, and that's probably what you're seeing.

 

[dave lackey]

So, what's with the character?

It's called confirmation bias, and that's probably what you're seeing.

No, there is definitely something there. Just as with my Nikkor 50 1.4 Millenium lens. No other Nikorr lens could give me the same results.

Then, I compare images posted here with images posted on the SLR site and there is a definite difference that works for my eyes. At least some of the Leica glass has a distinct character that pleases me. Now, I need to go back and write them down so I can remember which...maybe that's a bad idea becuase GAS will intervene.🙄

 

[aizan]

what slr site would this be?

 

[Jim Evidon]

Aside from some of the wise crack answers, there is a difference between German formula lenses and Japanese formula lenses. German lenses, and especially Leica lenses are higher contrast, while the Japanese lenses tend to favor neutral contrast. As to sharpness and overall performance, there is little if any difference between Nikon and Canon fixed focal length lenses and their German counterparts, except the greater contrast makes the later appear sharper or have more "snap".

Go to Reid Reviews and in lens test after lens test, Sean Reid comments on the difference.

 

[J. Borger]

Aside from some of the wise crack answers, there is a difference between German formula lenses and Japanese formula lenses. German lenses, and especially Leica lenses are higher contrast, while the Japanese lenses tend to favor neutral contrast. Go to Reid Reviews and in lens test after lens test, Sean Reid comments on the difference.

Go over to Reids site again and reed more carefull all japanese Zeiss ZM lenses are higher contrast than the Leica counterparts
(BTW i do not think high contrast is positive......)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dave,

Consider also the relevance of 'sparkle', very high MTFs at modest frequencies: both Zeiss and Ilford have done quite a lot of research on this.

My own belief is that much of the difference between Leica and other lenses lies in people seeing what they want to see. I also believe that this is supplemented by Leica having made more than their fair share of the best lenses of all time (regardless of how you care to define 'best lenses of all time') and by the fact that if you buy a Leica or a Leica lens, you're probably quite serious about, and experienced in, photography, so you'd take better pictures than average with pretty much whatever you bought.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

I'll add that I saw a big difference between RF lenses and SLR lenses when I moved to a Contax G from a Nikon F4, even shooting the best Nikkors. This could simply be German vs Japanese design also, but I put it down to the film to glass distance also. I never investigated to know for sure.

 

[PMCC]

if you buy a Leica or a Leica lens, you're probably quite serious about, and experienced in, photography, so you'd take better pictures than average with pretty much whatever you bought.

Or perhaps only that you have more money to spend.

 

[jonmanjiro]

I'll add that I saw a big difference between RF lenses and SLR lenses when I moved to a Contax G from a Nikon F4, even shooting the best Nikkors. This could simply be German vs Japanese design also, but I put it down to the film to glass distance also. I never investigated to know for sure.

I experienced something similar moving from a Nikon SLR system to a Nikon RF system. My RF glass clearly outperforms my SLR glass, especially at wider apertures. I suspect the reduced film to glass distance has something to do with it as well.

 

[Fred Burton]

"I suspect the reduced film to glass distance has something to do with it as well."

So the new micro 4/3 system, with reduced lens to sensor distance, should blow away Nikon and Canon professional SLR's and their lenses? How would reduced distance make a difference if the lenses were designed the format?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

"I suspect the reduced film to glass distance has something to do with it as well."

So the new micro 4/3 system, with reduced lens to sensor distance, should blow away Nikon and Canon professional SLR's and their lenses? How would reduced distance make a difference if the lenses were designed the format?

With an SLR, short focal length lenses have to be retrofocus designs, to allow the lens to sit too far from the film for the focal length. Rangefinder lenses can portrude quite far into the camera body, some short focal length RF lenses nearly touch the film. Its harder to make a retrofucus lens that is as sharp and low in distortion as a non-retrofocus lens.

 

[dimitris]

True however I bet that given a photo someone would have a hard time picking which ones were done with RF or SLR equipment or tell one brand from the other.