I'm principally a medium and large format photographer. I own a Nikon N90S with two zoom lenses that I use about once a year. Frankly, I've not taken 35 mm very seriously for the kind of photographs I enjoy (mainly landscape and architecture). However, a few nights ago a friend showed prints of some photographs made with an M6 and the 35 mm Summicron lens to me and to several other large format photographers. I was really impressed with the quality of the prints. Actually, that's an understatement - I and everyone else who saw the photographs (all large format photographers) were blown away by the detail and tonal range of these prints. I don't think any of us had ever seen anything quite like this from 35 mm negatives. While the enlargements were small (6"x9") I'm not a big fan of huge prints (11x14 is my typical enlargement size so I could live with enlargements that size.

This experience has caused me to reconsider the wisdom of lugging around my medium format outfit (I need the 4x5 for reasons other than print quality alone) and I've been toying with the idea of switching to a Leica system or at least upgrading my Nikon lenses to professional quality fixed focal length lenses rather than the consumer quality zoom lenses I now have. So here (at last) are my questions (I recognize that these questions call for almost completely subjective answers but I'd like to hear what knowledgeable people have to say):

(1) My friend's negatives were developed in pyro. I use pyro for large format negatives but have no experience using it with 35 mm. To what extent do you think the quality of the prints was attributable to using pyro as opposed to the quality of the lens? In other words, how much improvement to 35 mm negatives do you think pyro provides?

(2) Are Leica R lenses generally considered to be of comparable quality to the M lenses? I ask this because, all other things being equal, I think I'd prefer an R8 or other Leica SLR camera to a rangefinder just because that's what I'm used to and it seems more appropriate for my knid of photographs than a rangefinder. But if the R lenses aren't considered to be of the same quality as the M, then I'd just adapt to the rangefinder.

(3) Do you think that Nikon fixed focal length professional lenses are comparable in quality to Leica M lenses? I realize that asking this question to a Leica group is probably asking for trouble but I'm hoping for some objectivity and I thought someone might have used top quality Nikon lenses and then switched to Leica so that they would have personal experiences to share. I ask this question because it isn't the camera in which I'm interested, it's the quality of the lenses, and it obviously would be a lot less expensive to add a couple Nikon lenses to my existing camera than it would be to switch entirely to a Leica system.

Thanks for any thoughts or insight you have to share.

-- Brian Ellis (bellis60@earthlink.net), April 14, 2001

Answers

I have Leica M and R, also Hasselblad and Nikon pro gear, also do much landscape and scenic photography. At typical apertures used in landscape photography, the center-to-corner sharpness, contrast and tonal range at infinity between Leica R, M and pro-market Nikkor fixed lenses will not be significant. For this purpose one can rely on the ratings at www.photodo.com as a good guide, because they offer data at f8 and at infinity. Wide-open performance and "bokeh" (out-of- focus background rendering)at typical portrait distances, so often hyped by Leica afficionadoes, is a non-issue with this type of photography. The Leica M viewfinder frames are field-sized for the lenses at their closest focusable range, minus the amount Leica feels will be hidden behind a slide mount, so at infinity you will get significantly more than the framelines show. I have used M's successfully for landscape photography but you have to play with the framelines and make some guesstimates, or else use the discontinued accessory finders which are field-sized for longer distances. The compactness and lack of mirror bounce makes the M's great for backpacking/hiking, but otherwise an SLR is much more conducive to landscape photography. The older Leica R's (pre-R8) are lighter and slightly more compact, but the lenses are quite heavy for their size. The glass itself is heavy and the mounts are substantial. Their build quality is head and shoulders above manual or pro-AF lenses from Nikon, although optically as I said, at f8-f16 not significantly different, except their color balance is a tad cooler than Nikkors. I can't see a significant advantage, weight-wise, between my Hasselblads and Leica R, and prefer the Blad hands-down for landscape photography. For general travel photography, including a mix of landscape and human-interest, the Leica R is a perfect general-purpose system. For purely urban or strenouous hiking, the M shines above the others. Wildlife work is made much more productive by the AF-S, VR and 8-fps technology of the Nikon F5. My choices are made more on the basis of system advantages (format size, bulk/weight, technology) than optical performance, as these are all quite nearly equivalent with all of them at the distances and apertures I shoot the bulk of my work at.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 14, 2001.

> In other words, how much improvement to 35 mm negatives do you think pyro provides?

I have limited experience with pyro, but in testing whether or not I wanted to use it I used a worst-case test; I used 35mm HP5+, developed it in rollo pyro and made some 11x14 prints. Compared to the same film in a "standard" developer, results were, to put it bluntly, horrid. Grain was really chunky and acutance was way down; otoh I think it'd probably be just fine in 4x5 and larger formats in which tonal reproduction becomes the most important factor.

> (2) Are Leica R lenses generally considered to be of comparable quality to the M lenses?

Yes, on any practical level, they are.

> (3) Do you think that Nikon fixed focal length professional lenses are comparable in quality to Leica M lenses?

Yes, they are. A specific example of each brand will be "better" or "worse" (depending on the properties you're most interested in) than the other, but overall they're pretty much the same, as are other decent-quality brands.

Random thoughts:

Leica R lenses are _heavy_. You indicate that lugging around weight and bulk is a problem; imho that would eliminate Leica R and make Leica M much more appropriate.

But maybe 35mm isn't the right answer. For lots of medium-format work I use Rollei 6000 gear, which weighs about eight tons, about the same as a Hassie ELM and lenses, more than Bronica SQ. My solution to the weight problem when I don't want to carry it all is the Mamiya 6. Perhaps the Mamiya 6 or 7 or the new little Bronica 645 RF would be a better way to go, giving you the quality advantage of medium format for about the same weight as the N90 and a "pro" lens.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), April 14, 2001.

Having used most formats over the years and quite a number of cameras I would say that for your photographic interests, mainly landscape and architecture, stick with what you have got and what you know. On the other hand if your interests covered for documentary or travel shooting for example then Leicas may offer something that not many cameras can offer. I use both Leica M & R as well as Hasselblad and to be honest they are all amazingly good tools with differing strengths. Rangefinders are amazing for low light wide aperture work with a limited lens range {sounds good to me}. Leica R's are good alround tools with a lens range most manufacturers would be proud of! Hasselblads possibly bridge the quality weight gap better than any other camera i have used {personal opinion}. So are Leicas better than Nikon? well if near perfect colour fidelity, smooth tonal transitions, amazing shadow detail, in to the light capability and sharpness at all apertures are important criterior then yes. If you're always stopped down, shoot only black & white, then possibly no. When Leica transparencies are viewed on a lightbox you will see what i mean. Try renting one.

Gary.

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), April 14, 2001.

If you already have a Nikon system, try adding some of the better Nikon lenses first. The ones I have that I am most happy with are a 35mm f2.0 AF, 85mm f1.8 AF, 28mm f2.8 AIS and an older 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor P I had AI'd(my sharpest Nikon lens that may even surpass my 50mm Summicron-every Nikon owner should have one) I have also used and was very impressed by the 20mm f2.8 AIS Nikkor. I wasn't as happy with my Leica R system and finally ended up selling it. I had trouble focusing with the Leica screens and found the R system in general to be very heavy. It is well made stuff and the lenses are great and will probably last 50 years, but I enjoy shooting with the Nikon SLR more and now only have a Leica rangefinder system.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 14, 2001.

Brian:

Any answer to your question will be, to a large extent, subjective. Let me point out two things: 1. It has been 27 years since I have done photography for pay, since then it has been for fun; 2. From reading this site, most of the people here know a lot more about the technical aspects of these cameras than I do. All I can give you is 41 years of impressions, since I do no technical testing.

As to equipment: I have 35 mm, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9, 4X5 and 8X10. Equipment is Leica M, Nikon, Mamiya, Rollei, Blad, Arca, Deardorff.

A few comments on my experience:

1. Quality of lens and camera construction [note that I have never used a Leica R]. Bodies: I have an M3 which was made in 1957 [DS]. It still works perfectly. So it must be well made. In Nikon, I have an F2 [DE-1 finder, no meter], an FM and an FE2. I use the F2 a lot. I cannot imagine a stronger camera. It still works as well as the day that I brought it home and opened the box. I am using the FE 2 more now-a-days. It is lighter and works really well. It, clearly, is not made to the same standards as the F2 or the M3; but I like it. Lens: All of my Leica lens’ are newer black versions. They are mechanically excellent. All of my Nikon lens’ [ 10 in total: I also have 4 Zooms which I seldom use] are AI. My impression is that they are the mechanical equal of the Leica lens’ [I don’t have any AIS or newer so I can't comment on them]. I am particularly fond of the 24 and 105. The focusing ring on the 24 has now lost all of its color from use. I use the 35 for flash when I do PR work [non-paid]

2. Optical performance: Both my AI and M lenses perform very well. They are different. In some situations, I can see a marked difference in the final print or slide. Which is better? It depends on the film and the subject. Once again subjective. I see the same kind of difference between Zeiss T* and Mamiya. Still some of my best pictures were taken with an old C330 [180 Super is a hell of a lens].

3. I would agree that an SLR has advantages for landscape photography, but I have to admit that I have taken some nice ones with the M3.

So it is up to you.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), April 14, 2001.

Are R & M lenses equal? Probably. Are Leica better than Nikon? I'd say it depends on a number of criteria that may hold no importance to you. Over the years I've owned Nikon, Olympus, and now Leica R. Sharpness would be a toss-up, with each brand having lots of good lenses, some stellar perfomers, some not so hot. But something that Leica does (I'm assuming coatings) does let you see deeper into the shadows, especially with 'chrome. This is mentioned over and over, and my own experience seems to bear this out. As well the smoothness of the backgrounds (good 'ole bokeh) is better on most of the Leica lenses. Theories on bokeh credit the number of aperture blades as well as the design of the lens, and it is true that if one looks at most modern Nikon, Canon, etc you will find usually 5 blades, as compared to the 8 to 11 in a Leica lens. Are these going to make a difference in the saleability or artistic merit of an image? I think not. As far as the difference between R and M, it is more a case of how your mind works when photographing. The SLR does most things well. The rangefinder does somethings not at all (haven't seen a visoflex equiped M with 400mm at a sporting event for a looong time). But there are some things it does so well that once you've used a rangefinder, and if a lot of your imagery falls into those categories (night candid street shooting would be one, but landscapes.........)you'll never go back to an SLR. My opinion (for what it's worth). For landscapes or architecture expand your Nikon range. If you want to shoot night candids buy a used M6 (but don't get rid of the Nikons). Really, the only reason to trade the Nikons for the R (and I did this, at a huge loss), is if you enjoy pointing out to people how smooth your backgrounds are (and really, even most photographers haven't heard of bokeh, or at least don't believe in it), or how if you really squint hard you can kind of make out the naked couple in the shadows under the trees.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 14, 2001.

One final note as we talk about how well built a camera body is. Well, I have my champion. It is from the time I was actually doing this stuff. No question, it is the Minolta SRT series.

I remember doing shots on a rock face in the middle of Colorado [this is before anyone ever went to Colorado for a vacation]. We were about 250 ft up a vertical face and I was taking a shot. There was a slip, so to speak, and I dropped the camera [I was worried about things other than the camera at this particular time] and watched it bounce; over and over again. I found it the next day; it was dented but still worked perfectly.

Then, there was the time in Wyoming. We were on horses. The strap broke and the camera fell; the horse kicked it several times [they were going at full speed]. A few dents but it still worked. Yes, the SRT-101 was the strongest camera that I have ever used.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), April 14, 2001.

Here are a few sites with tests: http://www.bill-hunton-photo.com/nikvlei.htm http://www.jcberger.com/photography/tests/leicamvsnikonopinion.htm I shoot with both Nikon and Leica. On a cost/performance basis, you can't beat that Nikon 35/2 AF and 85/1.8 AF. I also love my AIS 105/1.8. If I'm shooting wide, I like the rangefinder. Longer lenses on the SLR. But I shoot mostly people, and seldom put a 35mm camera on a tripod. Pyro? Haven't tried it. Xtol works for me (and XP-2 Super.)

-- Phil Stiles (pjs@worldpath.net), April 15, 2001.

Since Nikon still makes most of their pro-level primes in manual-focus versions, it seems to me that an apples-to-apples comparison would be possible if one could find a rental source for the Leica-Rs. The aluminum and brass manual Nikkors, in spite of what Jay says above, give little if anything away to the Rs in build quality and often survive many decades of hard knocks in professional use. They work fine on the N90s. Economies of scale, however, certainly favor the Nikkors. A basic suite of primes, without any speciality lenses, macros, PCs, defocus controls etc. might be: 24mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 [80mm f1.4 in the case of Leica] and 180mm f2.8. The cost of those lenses ordered today from B&H: Nikkor, $2485; Leica-R $11,480. Do those numbers reflect a real difference in quality? As Texas Guinan used to greet her customers, "Hello, Suckers!...

-- david kelly (dmkedit@aol.com), April 15, 2001.

In reference to the above, let me make the following factual observations based on years of experience with both brands: Nikkor manual-focus AI and AIS SLR lenses do not have brass components, only aluminum. This is one reason why they are lighter than the Leica R's. This is also the reason they depend more upon viscous lubricant to provide the correct amount of dampening for the right "feel" to the focus, and why there is more variability in that feel between lenses in the Nikkor range. One can often pick up several samples of a particular Nikkor in the same overall condition and they will focus with differing degrees of stiffness, whereas unless extremely old or subjected to harsh use (or none at all)you will rarely find a Leica lens that isn't silky-smooth. Also, the focus helix of most Leica lenses is much less steep than the Nikkors, especially the later AIS, which makes the Leicas a bit slower but easier to focus critically. Last, Leica lenses are click-stopped at 1/2-stop intervals while Nikkors have detents at full stops only. This makes the Leica lenses more reliable for shooting in aperture-priority auto mode, as the lens can be set between stops and it will stay there. Nonwithstanding, I agree that Nikkors will take quite a beating and years of extremely hard use, and that even if they only lasted half as long as Leicas they're about 1/3 the price so economics still would favor the Nikkors. The subjective feeling of greater precision and quality in Leica lenses is definitely noticeable in the photographer's hand, though.

It should also be pointed out, in reference to the previous post re: manual Nikkors on n90s, that these lenses do not permit using Matrix metering, Shutter-priority or Program mode (the F4s allows matrix metering with manual lenses but not the S or P modes). Any R-cam Leica lens will work in all metering and exposure modes on any R body including the R8 (the ROM strip only functions to automatically zoom a Metz flash to the appropriate focal length, and ROM strips can be retrofitted to a large number of older Leica R lenses if the owner really needs that function).

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 15, 2001.

Brian:

My comments relate primarily to my results shooting color transpanencies and normally processed B&W... I shoot and own 4x5, Nikon F5, F100, and two Leica M6's. I used to shoot a lot of medium format as well, but found the M did as well as my 645's and the LF gear did beter than the 6x6's and 6x7's. I switched to the M exactly because of the smooth tonal transition that the M lenses exibited - It was so similar to my LF output that I was blown away by the quality. I have owned and extensively used almost all of Nikon's high end fixed focal lenses, as well as all of their "pro" zooms. In short, they simply don't compare to the Leica M. The Nikon's, while sharp, still have that "blocky" 35 look -- The M gives me the smoother look I get from larger formats. I've sold all of my fixed focal Nikon lenses except my AFD 50 f1.4. My AFD 35 f2 was a piece of junk, easily surpassed by my 17-35 AFS zoom. The zoom also was equal to the 20 and 24 fixed, so no gain at all here with the fixed focal versions. The only Nikon lens I owned that would give the M's a run for their money was the 85 f1.8, which is superb, but still not quite equal to the APO ASPH 90 M lens.

The M gear is expensive, and many folks cannot make piece with an RF camera, but I found the transition relatively simple. To me, shooting with the M becomes somewhat intuitive, like with the LF system -- you just start shooting, and don't think much about it.

Hope this helps,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), April 15, 2001.

It is interesting how many of us have undergone similar transitions. I also own F5 and F100 and sold almost all of my fixed AF Nikkors (although I still own the full set of my original AI'd Nikkors from 24-300 but only for sentimental reasons). I now have only a 20/2.8 AF-d, 50/1.8 AF, 100/2.8 AF-d Micro, and 300/2.8 AF-S, along with 28- 105 and 80-400 VR zooms and a Sigma EX 28-70/2.8 (call it my Party Snapshot Lens). I basically only use the Nikons for wildlife and nature photography, and have the other lenses along just so I can get other types of shots without having to carry two systems.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 15, 2001.

Brian,

I think an important point here is your friend's dedication to the craft. Developing 35mm negs in pyro takes alot of experimentation and exacts much out of the film. Certainly his printing procedures are equally disciplined. My opinion is your friends craftmanship in producing prints is what "blew you away" more than the camera make and format he used. I gather from your post that you are equally dedicated to the craft, as you develop in pyro as well and print to your own vision. The only advantage to 35mm in your application that I can see is smaller and lighter equipment. The R8 is like lugging around a medium format and the lenses are almost as expensive. The M is where you will gain the advantages of 35mm shooting, albeit there is no financial savings or lens range advantage over MF. Its small, light, robust and beautiful to shoot once you have mastered it.

I would recomend buying one good Nikor prime and experiment with film developing and printing 35mm. If it does not deliver what you saw in your friends prints, have him develop and print a roll you exposed. If you still don't get "blown away" by the prints then go out and buy an M6 and 35f2 summicron. You wont regret it.

Very subjectively Steve

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), April 15, 2001.

To Andrew's list of excellent Nikon lenses, let me add the 105mm f/2.5, the 24mm f/2.8, the 35mm f/2.8 PC-Shift, and, though it is no longer made, I have a 20mm f/4 which is very small and compact so that it can ride along in the bag without taking up any significant room, and be available when needed. I'll also mention that my 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is as excellent as the f/3.5 I had before it. On the other hand, mine has "funny Bokeh" In closeup shots of plants, I see double imaging of the out of focus stems. Otherwise, it maintains high sharpness from closeups to infinity.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 15, 2001.

Like many I made a change from one of the big camera makes back in the 80s, in my case Canon, to Leica because I was impressed with the quality of a friend's M3 results compared to what I was getting with my kit which included zooms and the FD50mm 1.4. As someone who takes primarily slides the differences between the lenses taken over many rolls was just too significant - superb sharpness, bokeh and just that indefinable image quality that spoke "this is better". As a result I went over to Leica R and I have not been disappointed yet. I hate the high prices, but the lenses particularly in the 28-280mm are just superb. I think that Jay is right that if you shoot at f8 all day then you will not notice the difference, but one of the great things about Leica is that you feel confident about shooting at full aperture and getting great results - none of this, "I must stop down two stops to get optimum performance". Also for those of us who shoot slow film (in my case mainly K64 or 100 slide films) then a great deal of the time stopping down is just not an option unless you have a tripod with you. It is at these apertures that Leica lenses show their mettle. My suggestion to you would be to buy a "cheap" Leica reflex s/h: perhaps an SL with the 2-cam 50mm Summicron and a 90mm Summicron or Elmarit and just try them out and compare to your Nikon. This would not be too horrible a price (SL + 50mm -$350 and 90mm (2 cam) $400) and you could see for yourself. You could always sell them for roughly the price you got them for if it did not work out. If you got nicer Nikon lenses you would not really have answered the question you ask as to which lenses are "better". I do think that an SLR is better for landscapes and for architecture no question (you cannot see converging verticals in a rangefinder) and there are no parallax issues, but equally you can learn to do it all on a rangefinder - but they are definitely an acquired taste. The M's are superb at focussing in low light which is an advantage they have over the reflex, but in terms of optical quality I don't think there is much to pick between them. I think it might be fair to say that the M currently have better wides than R in the 21-24 range and a nicer 90mm (Apo-Summicron), the R scores in the new 50mm Summilux-R and in the longer lenses 180mm Apo-Elmarit and 100 Macro-Elmarit come to mind here. The M may pull ahead in the 35mm lens too with the new ASPH 35s, but the 35mm Summicron-R is awfully good too. I don't use zooms so I can't really comment on these. I have no idea how many lenses you would use in Nikon, but there is no doubt that buying any kind of Leica outfit new or s/h is crippingly expensive and that is the main problem for most of us - the Nikon would certainly be much more affordable - hence I suggest a starter outfit as suggested above to let you get a feel. One could also suggest an M kit starter too (M3 with 50mm f2 and 90mm f2.8 say), but an equivalent M kit would cost you twice as much.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

I would say that to get optimum performance with Leica R lenses (except the APO Telyts) you *do* have to stop down one or two stops...but not all the way to f8 or f11 as you would with many other brands. And the top one or two apertures, if not optimum, are still excellent.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), April 16, 2001.

Correction: Optimum performance is indeed usually two stops down on any lens - but Leica's are truly useable and are very good wide open.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

over the years I have liked to go bigger about printing, when reach 16x20 I found why Leica lenses were expensive and Nikkor cheap, now I regret I didn´t notice it before. But if 5x7 is the size, any brand will do, even Nikkor.

-- R Watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), April 16, 2001.

I have used the F5 with pro lenses since 1999. My lenses include the 28-70 f2.8 SW, the 105 AF f2.8 and the 20mm f2.8 AF. Last year, I visited the National Geographic and saw an exhibition of prints of Cuba by David Alan Harvey. I saw the most beautiful soft backgrounds I have ever seen. I learned he used an M6. I get wonderfully sharp images with my Nikon lenses but never those soft backgrounds. I bought the M6 and the 35 mm f1.4 and started seeing those soft backgrounds (not in every image). In my mind, it is a matter of style. Nikon and Leica lenses produce different looking images. If you like the look of the Leica glass, you will need to buy Leica glass to get the look. I am not a professional photographer but I doubt if many consumers would notice the difference. I make photographs for myself and I notice the difference often enough that I care. Finally, although I understand the limitations of any rangefinder, the M is fun and a pleasure to hold and use. Just my two cents.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), April 21, 2001.

If you want to see what I think is a good sample of the look of Leica glass, take a look at Maggie Steber's work on the National Geographic web site. A totally different look IMHO than would have been achieved with Nikon lenses.

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), April 21, 2001.

I forgot to include the url:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0011/feature6/zoom1.html

-- David Enzel (dhenzel@vei.net), April 21, 2001.

Leica photos on the M are a bit special,and will always add that something even against the Rs.Look and see.

-- george renny (george@futurenetuk.co.uk), March 09, 2002.