who makes the best Non-Leica Leica Lens

[mfunnell]

Not once have I ever looked at a bad image I made and blamed the lens.

I'm with you, in that the image is always up to the photographer and the use she or he makes of the tools available. But I've not taken shots that I've known the lens wasn't up to, or taken shots differently go get around the weaknesses of the lens. I've even taken shots that I knew were "pushing things" with the particular lens and ended up with a lousy shot.

Of course, my best examples of those things would come from cheap zoom lenses on AF SLRs (which sure do have their limitations).

A point remains that the RF world is well supplied with very good lenses, and from manufacturers other than Leica and starting at quite reasonable prices (J8, anyone?). I doubt anyone is likely to be in the position of being unable to afford a good(-enough) RF lens. (If they really are, I probably have a J8 or I-50 that's surplus to need.)

...Mike

 

[rogue_designer]

Not currently having an M mount body to compare the new lenses - I compared LTM Leica versus other LTM lenses - Canon came out on top on average, with stellar showings by Nikon and Contax/Zeiss for certain focal lengths.

 

[alternatve]

Not voting. Not fond of the question - it smacks of a stalkinghorse with an agenda. I probably should have avoided this thread altogether. But here we go...

The best lens is the one I am using at the moment. I would not have spent hard-earned money if I did not think I was getting good value.

My experience with Zeiss goes back over 40 years - dad taught me to shoot with his Contax IIIa. My experience with Zuiko goes back 30 years - I got my OM-1 in the mid 70's. My more recent RF & MF experience includes Konica, Canon, Leica, Zeiss, Mamiya, Fuji and Nikkor. Not once have I ever looked at a bad image I made and blamed the lens.

Build quality is another matter, but then the 1945 CZJ Sonnar I have is built like junk - and makes glorious pictures when I use it right. And hey it's 63 years old so "built like junk" is pretty relative I guess.

Brand loyalty is real but not rational. One lens may "outperform" another when comparing MTF charts, but these extrinsic results do not make that lens intrinsically "better" than the other. IMO that kind of belief is delusional.

- John

"Not once have I ever looked at a bad image I made and blamed the lens. "

This should be made into a quote.

Samuel

 

[hans voralberg]

Yeah agree, it sounds classy and full of attitude

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Who makes the best Non-Leica lens

Who makes the best Non-Leica lens

I must admit at this point that I haven't got a clue as to the answer.

Having used SLR/DSLRs for the past few years, with only a minor dalliance with a Mamiya 7, I wouldn't know where to start. However, does it matter?

I'm not trying to be provocative (honestly!) but if 10 identical photos were taken with lenses of the same focal length and using the same f-stop / shutter combination, I'd wager that few - if any - would be able to identify which lens took which photo.

Maybe I'm wrong (it's happened many times before....) but so far, in my extremely short time as an RFF member, I can tell you which photos I prefer and why. However, whether there's a correlation (other than a predominance of Leica users here) between what I like and the equipment that took it, well.......I'm skeptical.

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm not trying to be provocative (honestly!) but if 10 identical photos were taken with lenses of the same focal length and using the same f-stop / shutter combination, I'd wager that few - if any - would be able to identify which lens took which photo.

Actually it's not that difficult really, especially for lenses with distinctive signatures like Tessars & Sonnars. A while back Raid Amin did a comparison study of something like 30 different 50mm lenses and as part of it we tried to guess which lens was which. There was more success at it than I expected.

Does that mean much? Not really, but since there can be visible differences if you want to look for them, then generally it's those characteristics that make up someones's "best" lenses. I prefer Zeiss & Canon glass because I like the look made by them more than I like the look from Leica/Nikon glass but that is pure subjectivity & where the fun really begins...

William

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Hi William. Like I say, I'm always happy to be proven wrong but, as Sitemistic alludes, if the printer uses an 'average' lens when producing the print, it sort of defeats the object. I suppose a signature bokeh and colour rendition might halp identify but 'vive la difference' as they say. Regards, Paul.

 

[StuartR]

Hi William. Like I say, I'm always happy to be proven wrong but, as Sitemistic alludes, if the printer uses an 'average' lens when producing the print, it sort of defeats the object. I suppose a signature bokeh and colour rendition might halp identify but 'vive la difference' as they say. Regards, Paul.

Definitely...if you are not using good technique from start to finish, then you are not going to see the best results. That said, if you are shooting with excellent technique, use a good film, develop it properly yourself and enlarge it with a perfectly aligned enlarger on a flat easel with a glass carrier and a great enlarging lens, the differences between lenses become more apparent. Most don't have the patience, skill or bother to do this. Myself included in many cases, but to just say there is no difference is wrong. If you said there is usually no difference, I would agree 100%. But if you have made a really good exposure and want to subject it to a really proper enlargement, then the differences between a good lens and a great one becomes significant and noticeable.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Hi Stuart, I'm not saying that there's NO difference. There are probably many differences. My point is that different doesn't always = better and, more to the point, we could all look at 10 examples of the same shot taken under laboratory conditions and still not be able to say what lens took what photograph.

I take your point about maintaining top quality throughout the workflow. I've spent lots of money on the best gear I can buy only to have high street shops and, I hate to say so-called pro labs, detsroy it through shoddy workmanship. Digital has an advantage so long as you have a good RAW or JPEG file and you know how to get the best out of it yourself.

My other point (question, actually) was whether the major difference between the cost of Leica and other manufacturers' lenses is justifiable when the differences might (and I stress MIGHT) be so subtle.

I'm all in favour of people havi g whatever they want and afford and I have no agenda to rubbish any lens or manufacturer. I'm new to this type of photography and it's a heck of a lot different from SLR / DSLR where the price of lenses seems to be more directly correlated to their performance.

 

[Doug]

I think it's pretty common among cars, watches, cameras, and even restaurants that the very best is exponentially more expensive than the merely excellent. When you really want the no-excuses absolute best, then there's a steep price to pay for that satisfaction. Often I'm willing to do without, save my pennies, and then get the best deal I can find on what I think is the best product. Because of that, my frugal folks warned my bride on our wedding day that I was a spend-thrift and must be kept on a short leash... So she has her little M-B and I have my BMW M3.

 

[rxmd]

I think it's pretty common among cars, watches, cameras, and even restaurants that the very best is exponentially more expensive than the merely excellent.

Actually it's common that there are some really expensive things that are usually associated with being very good. They may actually be the very best, and they may not. One isn't actually paying for quality, one is paying for this association with quality.

When you really want the no-excuses absolute best, then there's a steep price to pay for that satisfaction.

I think it's the other way round. What people really want in this case is not really the absolute best, it's the feeling of satisfaction of having bought something exclusive. Because it's exclusive, people will eventually believe it's "the best", even though in the case of complex problem domains like restaurants, cameras or cars it may not even make sense at all to point to one thing and say "it's the best". Quality is always quality with respect to something.

In fact, it is impossible to define what is best without referring it to some kind of specification what one wants to do with it. The fact that people are ready to label things as "the best" anyway is the best proof in my eyes that it isn't really about quality, it is about the satisfaction of exclusivity.

Philipp

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I'm loving being part of this forum. Contrary to some that I've been a member of, the debate is a bit beyond the all-too-common "Nikon or Canon. Discuss".

Delving deep into my schooling (which finished in 1979) I think the previous post is referring to "Giffen Goods" - i.e. those which have an exclusive label and for which people are prepared to pay the extra money - whether or not they happen to be the best. That might not be a txt-book definition but it's a long time since I studied economics formally....

For me, owning a Leica has been a dream since the early 1970's and I wasn't going to pass up the opportunity to do so when it came along. I still can't afford to buy whetever I want and, like the majority, I have to try to get the "biggest bang for my buck".

Anyway, it wouldn't be so much fun if we all had bags stuffed to the brim with Noktilux's, would it?

 

[Doug]

I suggest it can be either way... There are certainly those who buy the "best" label as a matter of status or exclusivity, or perhaps as a sort of guarantee that the goods will be top-grade without the effort of personal study and research. The stereotype dentist with the little-used Leica or Hasselblad kit...

But the informed buyer with little interest in the status aspect may end up choosing the same Leica or Hasselblad kit for more utilitarian reasons. Maybe to ensure the equipment will not be a limitation, that poor results will come from poor technique. Would the guy who tapes over the identifying marks on his Leica tend to be of this type?

 

[StuartR]

I agree that it can be either way. It's hard to argue that certain really expensive things aren't the best in some aspects. For example, the Bugatti Veyron is probably the most expensive production car, but it is the fastest at 250mph+, it does 0-60 in 2.4 seconds and stops nearly as quickly. But you can't take it to IKEA and shove a couch in the back of it. In the same way, the Noctilux is the fastest production lens, the 50/1.4 ASPH and 75/2 have extremely high MTF and so on. These mean that they do certain things extremely well. Whether those things mean anything to you or not are another factor. Just like the 250mph of the Veyron, the absolute peak performance of most Leica lenses is not going to have an impact on your daily user experience. That does not mean that it performs like a Honda civic in normal use.

This metaphor is way overcooked, but I would submit that it is just as foolish to say there is no "best" as it is to claim that it belongs to a single item. If you want the fastest 50mm lens, it is the Canon .95, if you want the sharpest wide open, it is the 50/1.4 ASPH, etc etc. It is up to you to figure out how big the differences are and whether they are significant to you. If you choose an expensive lens it does not necessarily mean that you are a wanker who only cares about the label.