Why Leica M lenses are worth the money

Timmyjoe

Timmyjoe

Veteran
Local time
10:26 AM
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
3,984
Years ago, before digital, I always noticed that 35mm negatives shot with my 50mm Summilux printed very well, even when enlarged to 16x20, especially when compared to negatives shot with any of my Nikon or Canon lenses (even FD Canon L lenses).

Was out shooting today with the M8.2 and a 35mm cron asph, trying to capture a storm moving in. The first image below shows the whole picture of what I was shooting and you may notice a dust spec in the sky.

Storm.jpg


I figured I needed to clean the sensor again. The second image shows a white box around the dust spec.

Box.jpg


The third image shows what the dust spec actually was.

Plane1.jpg


We live twenty-two miles from the airport. And that plane had to be thousands of feet up in the air at that point. It never ceases to amaze me the detail Leica lenses can capture.

Best,
-Tim
 
Timmyjoe said:
Years ago, before digital, I always noticed that 35mm negatives shot with my 50mm Summilux printed very well, even when enlarged to 16x20, especially when compared to negatives shot with any of my Nikon or Canon lenses (even FD Canon L lenses).

Was out shooting today with the M8.2 and a 35mm cron asph, trying to capture a storm moving in. The first image below shows the whole picture of what I was shooting and you may notice a dust spec in the sky.

Storm.jpg


I figured I needed to clean the sensor again. The second image shows a white box around the dust spec.

Box.jpg


The third image shows what the dust spec actually was.

Plane1.jpg


We live twenty-two miles from the airport. And that plane had to be thousands of feet up in the air at that point. It never ceases to amaze me the detail Leica lenses can capture.

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

Tim - this is an extremely irresponsible post! ;-)

Don't tempt me. My M6 is currently lensless and the 35mm summicron asph is the lens I have my eyes on.

3 grand is such an eye watering sum but it's clearly an eye wateringly good lens.
 
Riverman said:
Tim - this is an extremely irresponsible post! ;-)

Don't tempt me. My M6 is currently lensless and the 35mm summicron asph is the lens I have my eyes on.

3 grand is such an eye watering sum but it's clearly an eye wateringly good lens.
Click to expand...

Hey Riverman,

I originally bought the 35mm cron asph to use with my M6, (which the shutter proceeded to self-destruct on, so now it's back at Leica for service). But I loved using it with that body. It's nice on the M8.2 also, I just hate the crop factor.

Best,
-Tim
 
When I saw the first picture, I tried to wipe the tiny black smudge on my monitor. It didn't go away.

Then I saw the second picture and finally the last one..... geezzz :bang:
 
Last edited:
took a snap shot the other day at the beach
3-191of1-8-1.jpg

i saw something in the picture that looked like dust. but wait
ENHANCEEEE!
3-191of1-9.jpg

ENHANCEEE
P3121956-Edit.jpg


i live about 238,857 miles from the moon, it never ceases to amaze me the detail minolta lenses can capture.
 
ithrowbuckets said:
i live about 238,857 miles from the moon, it never ceases to amaze me the detail minolta lenses can capture.
Click to expand...

Let's see, the size of the moon would be equivalent to how many airplanes? :rolleyes:

Looks like quite a bit of sharpening and enhancement went into that final image, especially since it doesn't match the section of the leg in the same image.

The pictures I posted had no sharpening or enhancement, aside from putting the white outline around the spec, and zooming in on the spec.

Best,
-Tim

PS: You can download the RAW tiff of the DNG image as it came out of the camera at the web address below. The only process done to the image is cropping to just include the plane. (otherwise the file would be huge).
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/Assets/Forums/Plane.tif
 
Last edited:
That's nothing in comparison with the black hole in the centre of our galaxy which is visible just above and to the left of the other foot, of course.

Also, that moon looks like a bit of ice cream - or is it cheese?

:D
 
That's mighty impressive, next time I need to take a close look at my images before I clone out any suspected dust spots.

Second, I think CSI needs to use M8's to record evidence.
1261122218060.jpg
 
Timmyjoe said:
Just sharing my experience with the forum members. If you're not interested, there really is no need to post now is there?

Best,
-Tim
Click to expand...

You titled your post "why Leica M lenses are worth the money" then offered this shot as evidence. Since this is an open internet forum, you shouldn't be surprised that some people might disagree.

This was shot at what, f8 or f11? At those apertures, and in the middle of the field, I don't think a Leica lens has a great advantage in resolution over any other modern lens. As another poster said, I'd give the lack of an AA filter most of the credit. :)
 
Most of the major camera makers can resolve a tiny plane in the distance with their best lenses. This has been beaten to death IMO. No offense to the OP, but I thought we all sort of agreed to just accept that when it comes to investing in Leica, or any other uber expensive piece of glass/gear, it's for the overall ability of the lense to render an image the way we like it. General sharpness and resolution is not much of an achievement in this day and age.

Just my .02 cents.
 
Kevin, you may well be right, and if someone has a shot taken with some other type of lens that they would like to post, showing a similar resolution, I would enjoy seeing it. :)

Best,
-Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom