who makes the best Non-Leica Leica Lens

[roundg]

I am always surprised by how well built the M-Rokkor lens, even compared with Leica lens. On the other hand, I don't like the look and build of CV lens although they are good in optical formula and good for value.

My friends, let me know your opinion that who produces (d) the best Non-Leica lens for Leica mount camera?😎

My selection will be Minolta and Konica.

 

[mfogiel]

It is obvious, Zeiss produces the best non Leica lenses, and also the best lenses in general.

 

[cmogi10]

I voted for Zeiss based on experiance, I love my Biogon, It's a fantastic lens.

 

[mfunnell]

Well, I must say I like Konica lenses. I certainly have a few! I have the M-Hexanons in 28mm, 35mm and 50mm and also the UC-Hex 35. I will say that the two 35s are my favourites (despite being very different lenses), without in any way disparaging the 28 or 50. I have rather a soft spot for my Canon 50/1.8 as well.

I don't have any of the ZM lenses, but if they're at all like the Zeiss lenses for my G2 (especially the 45) then they'd be very fine lenses indeed. Others sure seem to think so.

Whatever you think of CV, I've had good service from my 28/1.9 (although I find it an awkward beastie in terms of size and more-or-less fixed lens hood).

I don't have any Nikon lenses, or any more exotic than those mentioned above. But isn't the real point that the Leica world (and the Nikon RF world) seems to be exceptionally well served for very good lenses (in comparison to, say, the SLR world). Overall, my impression is that RF cameras seem to have exceptionally good quality lenses available for them. If you avoid brand-new-Leica and "star" lenses like the Noctilux (and also collectible lenses) the RF world seems to supply lenses at that high level of quality for a very good price.

...Mike

 

[David Murphy]

I have not seen the Konica's or the old Voigtlanders, but the few old Nikon LTM lenses I've seen from the 50's really impress me in terms of build quality and performance. The 28/3.5 and 50/2 in particular come to mind. They are all somewhat rare today, and fetch top dollar if in good shape. I guess they are rapidly disappearing into cabinets of collectors now.

 

[pvdhaar]

I think you forgot to add the Rollei lenses that came with the 35RF; I believe it were a 40mm and 80mm..

As to which lenses I prefer, it's definately Konica M-Hexanon. Better built than equivalent Leicas, and image quality almost indistinguishable.

If money enters into the equation though, there's little contesting that Voigtlander lenses represent excellent value.

 

[rover]

Since I keep selling all of my lenses that are younger than me I limited my choices to the old favorites, and mine are the Canon lenses. 50/1.5 and 35/2.8 are classically styled and produce wonderful images with a traditional character. The later lenses are sharp and modern, the match for offerings from other manufacturers.

 

[Mackinaw]

For currently-in-production lenses, I'd go with Zeiss. For classic 1950's-era lenses, I'd go with Canon.

Jim B.

 

[hofrench@mac.co]

It's Zeiss, followed pretty closely by Konica, which is followed closely (in some focal lengths) by CV.

 

[kevin m]

There is no one "best" non-Leica lens; as usual, it depends on what you want.

The lenses that equal Leica in build and offer modern image quality are probably the new Zeiss lenses and the discontinued Hexar RF lenses. Expensive, but a bargain compared to Leica prices.

Next come the VC lenses, which can either equal, or come very close to Leica performance, if not build quality. Absolute bargains across the range.

Then there are, of course, a ton of LTM lenses out there from every corner of the globe that have a more 'vintage' look to their imaging. Build quality ranges from just as nice as Leica, with triple-chrome plated brass on the early Canon lenses, to the Soviet-era funky aluminum of the Jupiters. (Personal favorite so far: The Canon 50/1.5 'Sonnar' Probably the best 'Sonnar' out there. It's like a Jupiter 9 that focuses properly and is built like a jewel.)

A rough guide, of course, YMMV. 😀

(I've attached an obligatory 'vintage' shot from the Canon 50/1.5)

 

[StuartR]

I really do think that Leica makes the best lenses for Leica. But outside of Leica, I think Konica makes the best lenses when you consider optical performance, ergonomics and build quality. I own Zeiss lenses (21mm and 25mm biogon), old Canon (35/1.8), and voigtlander (15mm...previously 28/1.9 and 21mm). The only disadvantage Konica had was poor marketing and a rather limited lens line. The 35/2, 50/1.2 and 90/2.8 that I have (or had for the 35/2) are as good or better than equivalent Leica lenses. The only exception is that the 50/1.4 ASPH is a better (technical) performer than the 50/1.2, but they have different aims. The most amazing thing, however, is that ALL of these are good. There are very few bad lenses that fit on an M mount camera that were made in the last 30 years. Pretty much all of them are excellent.

 

[raid]

If this is a question about how well built a lens is, then my vote goes to Nikon. My 50/2 is extremely well built.

If the question is based on optical quality, then we have several options. It may depend on the specific focal length chosen for such a comparison.

 

[Krosya]

Hexanon work the best for me. But I'm sure some of you already know that. 😉

 

[Finder]

Minolta did make lenses for Leica. Since Minolta and Konica no longer make lenses, you should change those options to Sony.

 

[ferider]

Depends what you are looking for.

Certainly, the best Leica mount 12mm, 15mm, 40/1.4 and 35/1.2 is made
by Cosina/Voigtlander, because they are unique.

Then, Leitz copying the 35/2.5, 50/2.5 and 70/2.5 specifications
from Cosina should be seen as a compliment to KobayashiSan, IMO.
Before the Summarit line, they were unique, too.

I find built quality largely varies across the CV lens line. The 28/3.5, the
new P lenses, the 40 Nokton are outstanding in built quality.

The 25 snapshot and 35 Ultron that you are selling in the classifieds are not.

Pre-70s, both Canon and Nikkor lens built quality is at least equivalent
to Leitz, the coating is typically much better, the QA in particular of Nikkors
of that era was outstanding.

One of the beauties of the M/LTM mounts is that you can mix and match.
Only the M42 mount offers an equivalent (or better) amount of choices.

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

I disagree about the 40 Nokton. It looks pretty and has excellent image quality, but the "feel" of the sample I had simply wasn't up to Leica/Hexanon standards. It felt rough and stiff, even after I had it CLA'd by DAG. It really made me miss the buttery smooth focus of the Summilux 50. Maybe I got a bad sample....😕

 

[ferider]

I disagree about the 40 Nokton. It looks pretty and has excellent image quality, but the "feel" of the sample I had simply wasn't up to Leica/Hexanon standards. It felt rough and stiff, even after I had it CLA'd by DAG. It really made me miss the buttery smooth focus of the Summilux 50. Maybe I got a bad sample....😕

Possible, Kevin. My current one feels very similar to a Summicron. But
I did have to adjust the hood.

Roland.

 

[splitimageview]

Picking the 'best' is like trying to pick the best between De Niro in 'Raging Bull' and Brando in 'The Godfather.'

There are almost too many quality options available. 🙂

Personally, I'm on a vintage Nikkor trend at the moment, with 50/1.4 and 85/2 LTM models, and hoping a reasonably priced 35/1.8 appears. In the meantime, the ZM Biogon 35/2 is outstanding albeit modern.

 

[Hélix]

Beside Leica, the M-hexanon are my favorites (I own the 28 mm and the 90 mm)... Great built, excellent optical quality... Zeiss ZM are also really great (I own the marvellous biogon 35 mm)...

I think, it's so bad that Konica doesn't do anymore these marvellous lenses...

 

[StuartR]

I am actually quite happy to the see the Konica lenses well appreciated here. They really are superb!