Why Leica M lenses are worth the money

[Chinasaur]

My wife even just gave me the okay. I hate you all.

Noooo..don't fall for it!!!! That just means she wants something more than 3x MORE expensive than an M9!!!!

.......Probably a couch or something...

:bang:

 

[Mister E]

Naturally if you're comparing the high-end, lenses from all major players can be "very good." But at least Leica never had the cojones to release anything like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mark II! Optically it's not that bad, as it's a proven design. Too bad everything else about it makes you cringe at even spending the $75 for it... New.

They regularly snap in half:

The newer summarits are basically he same thing as Canon's standard offerings, they just lack autofocus and are 15 times the price. Leica's never sold a lens like the 50/1.8 EF which only costs $100 new. It's optically no less tangible sharp than a Summicron. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid!

 

[Field]

I find tone lacks on most lenses not found on Leica, by the way, personally. Resolution, sharpness, not nearly as important to me with color.

Comparing who can blow up the biggest image is sort of like arguing that mega-pixels are the only selling point to a digital camera.

 

[Doug]

OP's post reminded me of this one, which I'll share despite it was shot with a Pentax lens on a Pentax with film. Ooops! Plane was on landing approach to Kahului, Maui; don't know the distance.

the crop...

 

[f/14]

Would agree with Timmyjoe.
Although there are a lot of good lenses to be had, the 35mm Chron ASPH really stands out in the crowd. Seems that no matter what film you throw at it there seems to be more resolution power left in the lens. Even with a film-scanner with 39 Mp resolution.

 

[rogerzilla]

Here it is with somewhat older technology. Note that in this case the lens is not even focused at infinity but is at the hyperfocal distance (for f/8); I think I shot it at about 1/100 at f/16 handheld. Leica M3, Elmar Red Scale 50/3.5.

Uffington White Horse and Dragon Hill, Oxfordshire, England, on Easter Sunday morning.

In the field with the circular copse in it there is an annoying white dot - dust on the negative?

No, a real white horse.

 

[nobbylon]

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'm sorry to object but this statement is rubbish!
I've used all the Leica 50's both M and R at one time or another and sold most of them on here Noctilux excluded.
I've also used most of the Nikkor 50's and I can say without question that the 50mm F2 Ai is as good as any Leica 50 and Zeiss 50 for resolving, sharpness, colour and contrast.
I've recently been comparing one to my 50mm F2 R lenses (3 copies) and I can tell you the Nikon is sharper and has just as much contrast.
I agree with your 105mm verdict, easily as good as anything Leica has.
The 28mm F2.8 AIS is also in a class of it's own and I often compare it to shots from a 35 Asph I used to have.
The 35 Asph is a superb lens, no doubt but there are others out there. It all depends on what you want. I sold mine as I preferred the look of the v4.
The OP is happy with his lens and so he should be as it's a classic but there is loads of other glass available that will give it a good run.
The 'lacking' department for Nikon is 35mm lenses and once I used Leica I was always disappointed. I use a Summicron 35 on my Nikon's now and the gap in Nikon's line up is covered.