Can anybody give some comments on various Praktica (my body is a BX20) and Leica lens (my body is a R3)? My praktica lenses include 50mm 1.4, 28mm 2.8 and especially the 20mm 2.8 made by Carl Zeiss. My Leica lenses are the 135mm 2.8 and 240mm 4.0(i forgot their real names, but i think they would be the conventional ones). What i mean is, how are they compared with the canon NON-prime counterparts? (distortion, vignetting and lens build and quality). Thanks a lot.

-- Bernard T. (andromede@hotmail.com), July 30, 1998

Answers

>canon NON-prime counterparts? (distortion, vignetting and lens build and quality).

What do you mean by "NON-prime counterparts"??? ALL of the Canon zooms?

-- sheldon hambrick (shambric@us.ibm.com), July 31, 1998.

to clarify on the term 'non-PRIME'

what i mean are the lenses with same fixed focal lengths but not the L lenses

-- Bernard T. (andromede@hotmail.com), July 31, 1998.

"to clarify on the term 'non-PRIME' what i mean are the lenses with same fixed focal lengths but not the L lenses "

Hell, I swore I'd never post to this forum, but simply put, this does not compute.

"prime" means "fixed focal length". Pure and simple, 1=2/2, f8 at 1/125 equals f5.6 at 1/60, "prime" = "fixed focal length", sigh = is there any hope at all in this world?

I'm glad you own Leica lenses and bodies and spent your money before learning anything at all about photography...

-- Don Baccus (dhogaza@pacifier.com), August 01, 1998.

Dearest Don, thank you for your kind advice to a LUCKY beginner like me on what are 'prime lenses'.

Can you answer my question instead of mocking a beginner on a wrongly used term?

-- Bernard T. (andromede@hotmail.com), August 01, 1998.

You cna read all bout Leica, its history, quality, lenses in http://www.leica-camera.com/

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), December 30, 1998.

My friend has an old Practica camera with a "normal" prime 50 lens which deliver very nice (and reasonably sharp) looking snap-shots (the contrast and colour "balance" are truly outstanding). For what it4s worth (the purists will crusify me) I have shot several rolls of Reala (developed and printed by the same, quality, lab) on both Leica M6 (with 35/2 Summicron lens) and Konica Hexar (black), trying to shoot the same motive, at the same angle, almost at the same time (within reason), handheld and on tripod. Both myself and the owner of M6 have agreed that there was NO significant difference in delivered quality (all shots taken at Manual Mode on both cameras) as far as sharpness and contrast were concerned. There were some slight differencies in colour rendition - perhaps due to small light changes. We are talking ordinary 4 x 6 prints here! Perhaps ONLY when enlarged, Leica M6 images would justify its ridiculous price. On the other hand, Patek Philippe and Rolex still exist!

-- Andrzej Poniatowski (audiomix@algonet.se), December 31, 1998.

As tempted as I am to just bomb this entire thread, I think I'll leave it as an example of how things can degenerate into pure crap when people let egos get in the way.

Well, I finally got tired of using this post as an example of a thread gone to hell. I deleted 22 posts on 1-3-99, so if I left something in that doesn't seem to make sense I'm sorry. If I notice it or hear from someone who is confused by something I'll try to fix it.

To finally answer the question with some sense of sanity after remaining silent for so long seems bad, but I thought after Bernard clarified himself maybe someone would post something useful, but they didn't, so I'll try. I don't know anything about Praktica, but Leica is well respected for its optics. That said, so are Canon and Nikon among others. Most of the Canon non-L primes are thought to be just as good as the L lenses, they just don't fit the criteria for being L lenses due to the lack of Flourite elements, etc. Some people are convinced Leica lenses are superior to Canon and Nikon's best, but the reality is that other than some distict color cast from one brand or the other all are likely to have a certain lens or two that blows the others away, and a few that don't measure up. It is likely that they would all come out pretty even if you were to average all of the various lenses from these manufacturers, and that photographic technique will make a much bigger difference in the quality of the photos than the name on the lens ever will. Until you start splitting hairs, comparing state of the art with state of the art is unlikely to get you very far.

The only experience I have with Leica is looking through a pair of rediculously expensive Geovid binoculars. I was no more impressed than I was with my consumer grade Nikons, which makes me wonder just how good the premium Nikons are by the way. Aside from a flatter field or perhaps better flare control, I doubt there is a huge difference, and the expensive Leicas are probably better in that respect also. I isn't likely to matter for casual viewing, and the same goes for cameras, and perhaps even more so, due to all the other variables - user, film, tripod, flash, processing, printing, print paper type, etc. In other words, unless you have bought equipment that is pure crap, you are just chasing your tail to worry about something else being better.

-- Brad (reloader@webtv.net), December 31, 1998.

Want to know why those with more money than sense buy Leica? So do I, but there's no real answer, except if you buy them as jewelery or an investment and leave them sitting in your bank vault until someone with even less sense and even more money comes along.

Want a pro photographers evaluation of Leica, published in "Professional Photographer" magazine, read >a href="http://www.caliach.com/paulr/writing/jaccuseleica.html"> this article.

Want to see how a Leica 90mm Elmarit M can't even get close to the image quality of a Canon 70-200 f2.8LZOOM lens. Read this article by another pro photographer. Here's a brief quote "The 90mm however showed a big difference as the Canon was much superior in every way and revealed texture and definition that just wasn't there in the Elmarit. A disapointment I have to say! I use the M6 almost daily as it is very light , discrete and quiet, but for anything critical it seems I'll still have to lug the Canon zooms around. So much for superior Leica optics and the benefits of rangefinder design!!

The most common opinion about Leica's are they they are good, but highly overpriced. The Leica rangfinder's are nice because of the reaon that they are different fron SLR's. Smaller, lighter etc., but most serious users still consider them to be overpriced. Almost nobody gives serious thought to using Leica SLRs and lenses, which have NO advantage over Nikon and Canon and, as usual, are priced at a level that their performance cannot justify.

-- Dan (dandandan@iname.com), January 04, 1999.

>Want a pro photographers evaluation of Leica, published in >"Professional Photographer" magazine, read >a >href="http://www.caliach.com/paulr/writing/jaccuseleica.html"> this >article.

I did, and had some disagreements. I have my own article at http://www.geocities.com/soho/workshop/4472

>Want to see how a Leica 90mm Elmarit M can't even get close to the >image quality of a Canon 70-200 f2.8LZOOM >lens. Read this article by another pro photographer. Here's a brief >quote "The 90mm however showed a big >difference as the Canon was much superior in every way and revealed >texture and definition that just wasn't >there in the Elmarit. A disapointment I have to say! I use the M6 >almost daily as it is very light , discrete and >quiet, but for anything critical it seems I'll still have to lug the >Canon zooms around. So much for superior >Leica optics and the benefits of rangefinder design!!

Funny, my experience is the exact opposite. Neither my Canon 70-200/2.8L (my first lens in that range) nor my Nikkor 80-200/2.8 (my second in that range) outperform the sharpness, contrast, and bokeh of my 90/2.8 Elmarit. I do miss the zooms at times, but for the convenience, not their performance. I guess seeing is believing, and it depends who you talk to. A better idea would be to do what I did... instead of regurgitating what other people claim, use the equipment yourself, and draw your own conclusions.

-- Hoyen (simontart@hotmail.com), January 12, 1999.

Dan wrote: "Want to know why those with more money than sense buy Leica? So do I, but there's no real answer, except if you buy them as jewelery or an investment and leave them sitting in your bank vault until someone with even less sense and even more money comes along."

This is one of the most absurd and short-sighted statements I've ever read. Sure, Leica is expensive, but so is a Mercedes or a Ferrari. And don't tell me, if you ever had the money, you'd take a Toyota Camry over one of those. Let's put jealousy aside and face it: there are some people who have more money than others. For them there are Leicas, Rolexes, and BMWs. Doesn't mean they have less common sense than anybody else. It just means that they prefer craftsmanship and quality over mass production and are willing to pay the price for it. For what it's worth, I use Nikon right now, and hopefully someday I will own a Leica....

-- Mike (m_mcgyver@hotmail.com), January 22, 1999.

I have to agree with Mike. Also I dropped my R6 by mistake from about shoulder hights to the pavement of a street!!!. The only protection was a plastik lens cap over my zoom lens. I thought I'd crab in my pants and still get the goosebumbs just thinking about it. I would like to mention, the only damage was a light dent in the metal lens hood! No scratch or dent or whatsowever. Imediately I tested the lens and the camera - they worked as nothing has happened. I hope this story will settle some dust too!

-- Guenther Fuernsteiner (Guenther.Fuernsteiner@state.or.us), February 25, 1999.

Id like to comment on Dans assertion that Leicas are not that superior. He brings into play two articles about Leicas.

The first one, called "jaccuseleica.html" isnt a bad article. But Dan seems to imply that its a rip on Leicas. Its simply an article that demystifies the Leica. But please keep in mind that the writer of the article is himself a Leica user and uses one professionally everyday. He loves his M6, but just as Phillip Greenspun has ripped on the EOS- 5(A2E) in his own review, he still loves it and uses it.

The second article Dan brings into the fray claims that the Canon Zoom 70-200 f/2.8L is superior to the 90mm Elmarit M in every way. This is absolutely hogwash. This article is the only place Ive ever heard this claim. In fact, Ive heard the exact oppositewhich brings into question the believability and credibility of the writer. But hey, its his opinionbut an opinion that he stands alone in.

In this day and age of wiz-bang everything, RGB meters, USM lenses, 8 and 10 fps motor drivesI like the simplicity of the Leica M. 6 camera controls. Count them, 6. Silent operation that a SLR can come close to, but never claim to be truly silent. Over engineered and under stressed and built to lastand of course they keep theyre value!

-- Scott Gant (sgant@interaccess.com), March 24, 1999.

With regard to the above test between Leica and Canon one of the most important attributes of Leica lenses was not tested. This being their extraordinary performance wide open or near wide open.

-- steve vincent (svvincent@hotmail.com), February 09, 2001.

Steve,

Concerning;

"With regard to the above test between Leica and Canon one of the most important attributes of Leica lenses was not tested. This being their extraordinary performance wide open or near wide open."

How are the Leica lenses better in performance that the Canon lenses wide open or near wide open. I have a number of Canon lenses that perform wonderfully at these settings. It is not just sharpness it is also the wonderful out-of-focus areas of the background. The color rendition and contrast are wonderful.

The Canon lenses include the 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2.8 macro.

-- Marc Bergman (mbergma2@ix.netcom.com), February 09, 2001.

Marc,

I did not say that Canon lenses were inferior to Leica lenses wide open, although I am sure they are as the more modern Leica lenses really excel in this area.

The Leica 35/2 Asph and 35/1.4 Asph and the Leica 90 APO-Asph lenses are stunningly sharp at full aperture with beautiful out of focus rendition too, (although not as good in this area as the older versions of these lenses). Mind you the cost of the Leica lenses mentioned here is to say the least exorbitant. A Leica 35/1.4 Asph for example will set you back some US$2,200, a 90 APO-Asph a mere US $1,850. Value for money the Canon wins hands down, however if you want the very best and money is no object then the Leica and some of the Zeiss lenses are unbeatable. At smaller apertures you will find that most lenses put up a very creditable performance.

-- steve vincent (svvincent@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.

Marc,

The Leica lenses I am refering to are for the Leica M rangefinder. I have no experience of the Leica R SLR lenses. I forgot to mention that the contrast and color rendition of the Leica lenses I mentioned are wonderful. So they should be too for the dough they cost.

-- steve vincent (svvincent@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.