kshapero
South Florida Man
What's with those Panasonic Leica lenses? Are they actually better than Lumix lenses? Can't really tell any difference.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
My Panasonics are the Leica-branded ones, with lenses that say Leica on them. I haven't tried the non-Leica Panasonics. Presumably, Leica at least designed the ones that are branded Leica; but I don't even know that for sure. Could it be that Panasonic just purchased the right to use the Leica name on their own lenses? Maybe it just means that Leica certifies these lenses to be up to Leica standards?
Mackinaw
Think Different
It was my understanding that Leica designed them, and Panasonic built them. I have the 25mm F1.4 Summilux for my Olympus OM-D. A fine lens.
Jim B.
Jim B.
raid
Dad Photographer
Same as what Jim has said. Maybe I am wrong, but I have been expecting Leica to do the design of such lenses. I like using my 25/1.4 Summilux by Panasonic.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I decided for the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 over the Panasonic version.
And I really like it
And I really like it
Ste_S
Well-known
At this stage I'd imagine there's a lot of cross pollination between Leica and Panasonic across various bodies and lenses (in much the same way there used to be with Minolta).
daysleeper
Newbie
The chitter-chatter is that this used to be more of a cooperative enterprise, with Leica doing the math and manufacturing the glass for assembly by Panasonic, but now, it's just branding. Panasonic, or one of its Japanese partners, such as Sigma, develops the lens formula, and Leica merely gives its approval.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have one of these in the cupboard but no camera to put it since selling my OMD. It was an exceptional lens in my opinion and this thread has reminded me that I should sell it because I'm never going to have a camera to use it on.
peterm1
Veteran
This kind of arrangement was relatively common "back in the day" and as such has a long history. In the 1970s for example Zeiss and Konica formed a relationship and some Zeiss designed lenses were made by Konica and branded as such. Konica also manufactured some Zeiss designs for other Japanese companies - the 50mm f1.7 was one such very successful design which was sold under many other high end Japanese camera labels, apparently made by Konica.
Leica did much the same kind of thing with Minolta. And sometimes the arrangement went both ways - when Leica wanted to step up its marketing of its SLR cameras they needed zooms an area in which they lacked design skills. So they did a deal with Minolta and initially used Minolta zooms (which for Leica's purpose were made by Leica using Minolta designs and glass) because Minolta had that particular expertise and Leica wanted to develop theirs . (A Minolta 35-70mm mm is a case in point which was sold by Leica in Leica livery as a Vario-Elmar).
Later when digital photography went beyond being just toys, Leica which was and is still relatively small when compared with Nikon, Sony Panasonic, et al and lacked the big bucks for R and D in the field, entered into an arrangement with Panasonic - it provided the glass (which was its area of expertise) and Panasonic provided the electronics expertise and technology. A number of Panasonic pocket cameras with Leica glass were rebadged as Leica cameras while much the same cameras were being sold as Panasonic with Leica badged glass.
I presume that Panasonic lenses branded Leica for 4/3 are still designed by Leica. Are they better than Panasonic lenses? I am not sure that I would put it that way because these days lens design skills are widely dispersed and almost every 4/3 lens I have tried is excellent or close to it (helped I guess by the small sensor). But the Leica badged ones are certainly excellent too.
For example one of my older "Leica" 4/3 lenses - the Panasonic / Leica 25mm f1.4 D Summilux lens made for the original 4/3 DSLR system (i.e. before mirrorless) which I still use with an adapter on 4/3 mirrorless cameras is about my favorite 4/3 system lens, being very sharp in the centre at f1.4, exceedingly sharp across the field at f2 and full of character. Is it better than other m4/3 lenses? Technically probably not, but it is certainly as good as I could ever want, Leica Summilux badge on the front or not. I am seldom swayed too much by considerations of whether a lens for this type of camera is badged Leica or not, preferring to go by tests and reports. Many Olympus m4/3 lenses for example are excellent too.
Leica did much the same kind of thing with Minolta. And sometimes the arrangement went both ways - when Leica wanted to step up its marketing of its SLR cameras they needed zooms an area in which they lacked design skills. So they did a deal with Minolta and initially used Minolta zooms (which for Leica's purpose were made by Leica using Minolta designs and glass) because Minolta had that particular expertise and Leica wanted to develop theirs . (A Minolta 35-70mm mm is a case in point which was sold by Leica in Leica livery as a Vario-Elmar).
Later when digital photography went beyond being just toys, Leica which was and is still relatively small when compared with Nikon, Sony Panasonic, et al and lacked the big bucks for R and D in the field, entered into an arrangement with Panasonic - it provided the glass (which was its area of expertise) and Panasonic provided the electronics expertise and technology. A number of Panasonic pocket cameras with Leica glass were rebadged as Leica cameras while much the same cameras were being sold as Panasonic with Leica badged glass.
I presume that Panasonic lenses branded Leica for 4/3 are still designed by Leica. Are they better than Panasonic lenses? I am not sure that I would put it that way because these days lens design skills are widely dispersed and almost every 4/3 lens I have tried is excellent or close to it (helped I guess by the small sensor). But the Leica badged ones are certainly excellent too.
For example one of my older "Leica" 4/3 lenses - the Panasonic / Leica 25mm f1.4 D Summilux lens made for the original 4/3 DSLR system (i.e. before mirrorless) which I still use with an adapter on 4/3 mirrorless cameras is about my favorite 4/3 system lens, being very sharp in the centre at f1.4, exceedingly sharp across the field at f2 and full of character. Is it better than other m4/3 lenses? Technically probably not, but it is certainly as good as I could ever want, Leica Summilux badge on the front or not. I am seldom swayed too much by considerations of whether a lens for this type of camera is badged Leica or not, preferring to go by tests and reports. Many Olympus m4/3 lenses for example are excellent too.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've used two of the Leica-Panasonic micro four thirds lenses.
The 15mm f1.7 is a wonderful lens, tack sharp wide open. I sold mine because I rarely used it. The 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus pro lens gets most use from me, and it covers the 15mm focal length.
The other one I tried was the 8-18mm f2.8-4. I bought and returned five of them and every one was severely decentered. One side of the image would be tack sharp, the other side so soft it looked like a shot from a holga. I gave up and bought an Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens.
The 15mm f1.7 is a wonderful lens, tack sharp wide open. I sold mine because I rarely used it. The 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus pro lens gets most use from me, and it covers the 15mm focal length.
The other one I tried was the 8-18mm f2.8-4. I bought and returned five of them and every one was severely decentered. One side of the image would be tack sharp, the other side so soft it looked like a shot from a holga. I gave up and bought an Olympus 7-14mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens.