Why Leica M lenses are worth the money
- Thread starter Timmyjoe
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 14K
jarski
Veteran
cheese moons and starships... one reason more to buy Leica glass, not to get those into your photos! 😀
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
As the poster declared, it was "enhanced"; I do have to agree that it looks like a (very) bad cut-and-paste job. It was trying to illustrate a point; poorly illustrated, I'll give you that.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Wow, alot of people woke up on the critical side of the bed this morning...
Why not let's all just go out and do some "seeing", and maybe some shooting, and enjoy our hobby/pursuit?
Why not let's all just go out and do some "seeing", and maybe some shooting, and enjoy our hobby/pursuit?
awilder
Alan Wilder
The OP was trying to justify why Leica M lenses are worth the money. However, with the thousands of $$ a new 50 Summicron (their least expensive lens) sells for currently (excluding the Summarit line), I think this statement only applies to used M lenses. If buying new, stick to CV or ZM unless it's a lens unique in speed/focal length from Leica not available on the used market yet and you have very deep pockets.
Last edited:
Sonnar Brian
Established
I picked up the M9 a few weeks ago- paid for by selling off gear. I love it.
I am keeping the M8, and use both. Must admit- throwing a lens onto the M9 without bothering with an IR reflecting filter is nice. I have some oddball lenses that were difficult to find filters for. The 5cm f1.5 Summarit was the first lens on the M9.
The M9 is great for collimating Sonnar conversions, Jupiter-3's, and Jupiter-8's...
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I was just thinking Brian ... if Leica ever offer a live veiw option for the Digital M would that be beneficial for someone like you regarding lens collimation?
Mister E
Well-known
I finally got to use an M9 when I was in Tokyo a few weeks ago. I've been jonesing for one ever since. I have twice an M9 in stupid film cameras. I had it all in my cart, credit card entered and all, but I just can't pull the trigger.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Mister E
Well-known
My wife even just gave me the okay. I hate you all.
taskoni
Well-known
Timmyjoe
Veteran
MCTuomey
Veteran
Fun shots! Thanks for sharing.
Nikkor AIS
Nikkor AIS
Okay, I will play along.
heavily cropped 😉
Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal on Nikon D3 ISO 6400 1/60 @ 1.2. Jpeg done in camera.
Taken at night of a plane overhead.
The lens (any lens for that matter) is but "one" element of the image chain. Saying that, I don't think Leica glass is any better than the finest Nikkors like the Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal, Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D ...OO.
heavily cropped 😉Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal on Nikon D3 ISO 6400 1/60 @ 1.2. Jpeg done in camera.
Taken at night of a plane overhead.
The lens (any lens for that matter) is but "one" element of the image chain. Saying that, I don't think Leica glass is any better than the finest Nikkors like the Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal, Nikkor 28 1.4 AF-D ...OO.
Last edited:
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
- Local time
- 10:55 AM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 16,953
- Location
- The Gateway To The Hudson Highlands
A year ago, my girlfriend offered to buy me a M9 as a gift if I wanted one, but I still shoot film and in the meantime got into MF.
No mercy.
Cal
Sonnar Brian
Established
No- I have to remove the lens from the camera to adjust the Shim and to tighten it into place. It was more trial and error, but with practice I can usually take one picture, measure the old shim, and figure out the thickness that I need. I have an algebraic formula for this- but rarely resort to it.
Get the M9. Especially if your wife Okay's it!
Joeys61
Joey
Tamron Glass baby...totally amazing...
All in fun brother 🙂
That's a helluva lens shade cloaking device!
jsrockit
Moderator
Field
Well-known
I think some things are being looked at poorly here...
First the Leica advantage is that pretty well all of the lenses at any point are extremely good. Other manufactures do not offer this "all of it is pretty much as good as it gets" kind of tag line.
I can not speak for Nikon's new gear. I can say I hate the filters on 99% of digital equipment, and further more hate the totally screwed up contrasting and enhancing of color they do - in a competitive fashion because it makes everyone look like a better photographer. However when it comes to film Nikon lenses I can say a couple of things.
There are lenses made by Nikon that are going to give you just as much as a Leica lens, but not all of them will. Probably the best thing I have ever seen on a Nikon is the 105mm f2.5. It has a legendary status for a reason and I would use it for a shot anytime I would a Leica anything. When it comes to 50mm Nikon has nothing at Leica quality. Zeiss makes some, but Nikon has just fell short. The f1.2 resolution is about as crappy as the f1.4 when we look at their speedier lenses. I am not sure on the f1.8 but the f2 resolution is probably on par with any Leica lens but it lacks the contrast so it will never compete in color.
I have no experience with Canon but as another example... Yashica GSN's are just as good as Leica's in the native format lens size, but you got the glass in a mass-market cheapy. I would even say the Olympus XA is Leica good but is in a body that is one cheapest scummiest looking packages ever. They both have major drawbacks compared to Leica but at certain times offer photos just as good.
With Leica you can reduce your gear down to one 35mm that does it all near perfect. No one else offers that with their own brand of lenses. Nikon and Canon might have some really nice stuff but not in all sizes. Funny enough though you can buy exotic lenses for your cameras through Zeiss, so it largely becomes about body preference and price concerns.
There is straight up too much incentive for people to compete and close the gap on quality. That's the way it is.
First the Leica advantage is that pretty well all of the lenses at any point are extremely good. Other manufactures do not offer this "all of it is pretty much as good as it gets" kind of tag line.
I can not speak for Nikon's new gear. I can say I hate the filters on 99% of digital equipment, and further more hate the totally screwed up contrasting and enhancing of color they do - in a competitive fashion because it makes everyone look like a better photographer. However when it comes to film Nikon lenses I can say a couple of things.
There are lenses made by Nikon that are going to give you just as much as a Leica lens, but not all of them will. Probably the best thing I have ever seen on a Nikon is the 105mm f2.5. It has a legendary status for a reason and I would use it for a shot anytime I would a Leica anything. When it comes to 50mm Nikon has nothing at Leica quality. Zeiss makes some, but Nikon has just fell short. The f1.2 resolution is about as crappy as the f1.4 when we look at their speedier lenses. I am not sure on the f1.8 but the f2 resolution is probably on par with any Leica lens but it lacks the contrast so it will never compete in color.
I have no experience with Canon but as another example... Yashica GSN's are just as good as Leica's in the native format lens size, but you got the glass in a mass-market cheapy. I would even say the Olympus XA is Leica good but is in a body that is one cheapest scummiest looking packages ever. They both have major drawbacks compared to Leica but at certain times offer photos just as good.
With Leica you can reduce your gear down to one 35mm that does it all near perfect. No one else offers that with their own brand of lenses. Nikon and Canon might have some really nice stuff but not in all sizes. Funny enough though you can buy exotic lenses for your cameras through Zeiss, so it largely becomes about body preference and price concerns.
There is straight up too much incentive for people to compete and close the gap on quality. That's the way it is.
ktran
Established
Similar threads
- Article
