n a recent thread, someone wanted to change to Leica cameras because he felt that B&W photographs taken with Leica lenses were “better.” Other people chimed in talking about the “special” look of old Leice lenses. I was taken to task for characterizig the discussion as “riduculous” because I thought that such blanket statements about the properties of Leica lenses versus other lenses did not make sense. Indeed, I do not think that, as a general proposition, one can “recognize” B&W pictures as talen by Leica lenses. Nor do I think that, again, as a general propostion, Leica lenses are better than other good lenses. What I do thibk is that certain lenses have properties that can be recognized (sometimes) in a photograph. And these properties may be the “poorer” properties of the lens: flare, distortion, etc.

Below are two of my old photographs. The first is taken with a Leica IIIC and a Summitar-50 at f/5.6. It shows that this old lens is sharp at 5.6. The picture was taken in Kenya at Kidepo National Park on Tri-X.

The second, which is one of my favorite photographs, was taken with a Nikon-F with a 105mm/2.5 lens, probably at f/4. It was taken in Ngorogoro Crater in Tanzia on Tri-X.

I don’t think that one can ”recognize” the first picture as a Leica shot ot the second as a Nikon shot.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002

Answers

The picture-posting gremlin struck again. Here's the Leica picture:

...and here is the Nikon picture:

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

This has been said repeatedly, but seems to be repeatedly disregarded. Lens comparisons on the web are, for the most part, ridiculous. The subtlety of one lens versus another is often evident in hard prints, but is almost always lost once the images are reduced to 72 dpi... Why do we keep doing this? And does anyone really take these images seriously?... I've personally known several great photographers, & know a number of very good ones--rarely does anyone of them give a damn about these issues. The image -- IMAGE -- is all that matters. The lens is a delivery device. The same great image taken w/ 20 different lens would still be the same great image, given that there would be subtle shadow/sharpness differences that almost no one would pay attention to... Sorry to be cranky, but come on!

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 17, 2002.

> And does anyone really take these images seriously?... I've >personally known several great photographers, & know a number of >very good ones--rarely does anyone of them give a damn >about these issues. The image -- IMAGE -- is all that matters. The lens is a delivery >device. The same great image taken w/ 20 different lens >would still be the same great image, given that there would be subtle shadow/sharpness >differences that almost no one would pay attention to... >

But that is really my point

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

>Lens comparisons on the web are, for the most part, ridiculous.

But the recent set of Summmilux-75 pictures posted by Mike Dixon do give an idea of the properties of that lens.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

Mitch,

Those are great pictures! Frankly, I like the giraffe better than the rhino. Whether it's the f stop difference or the exposure, there is more crisp detail in the giraffe shot.

Beautiful pictures either way.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), March 17, 2002.

I think the differences are more apparent when the lenses are used wide open. And the quality of a photographic image has much more to do with at least a dozen other factors besides lens brand. Now, why do the giraffes have great tonality, while the Rhino has too much contrast? Is it the nature of the beasts? ;+)

-- Phil Stiles (Stiles@metrocast.net), March 17, 2002.

Both of these photos would be better in chrome.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), March 17, 2002.

Patrick is of course right. It would be impossible to tell the difference beween two good quality lenses by means of an electronically produced image. However in the "wet" it is quite possible.

A professional photographer who saw two images of mine made with a Leica III and a Summar immediately said, without knowing what camera I used, those were taken with a Leica weren't they ?

He then went on to explain to the students around him about Leica subtleties of tone against the Japanese method of building contrast into their lenses to give illusions of sharpness. I was impressed by his spontaneous comment. I could probably tell a Leica picture if it was alongside a picture taken with a Jap lens but I would be hard pressed to pass judgement on just seeing one picture.

-- Tony Brookes (gdz00@lineone.net), March 17, 2002.

>Both of these photos would be better in chrome.

You're simply wrong, particularly about the rhino picture. Both prints have beautiful gradation.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

Mitch, it is really a matter of taste; I think wildlife subjects are better presented in chrome. As with many things, there are exceptions, but not here. I won't argue any points over which lens is better, because obviously different lenses are not being compared against the same subject, at the same time and with the same film and post-exposure processing. Comments about which lens is better based on what you have posted cannot be meaningful. Both photos are well-composed. There may be a full ten zones of tonal gradation in your rhino post, but monochrome here just doesn't make this image stand out. No offense, but you asked.

-- Chris Henry (henryjc@concentric.net), March 17, 2002.

Yes, we're arguing over esthetics; but I think it's difficult to prove that wildlife subjects are generally better in color. Look at _Wild_Beasts_ by Nicols Bruant (Chronicle Books), recently re-issued as a paperback. Wonder wildlife pictures from East Africa in B&W. Here is a picture that only works in color, tahen with the Leica IIC and Summitar-50 lens at f/8 on Kodachrome. {I'm not sure the colors will come through properly on a jpeg file.]

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

Correction: Leica IIIc. TAken on Independence Day at Gulu, Uganda in 1964.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), March 17, 2002.

Mitch,

I think you're wrong here. The giraffe picture is obviously better. Just look at how the qualities of the Summitar have eloquently presented the graceful stance of the giraffe. The rhino, in contrast, is obviously arrogant and anti-social, and seems to exhibit the qualities of HCB caught in the middle of a criticism of one of his photographs - obviously Nikon qualities. (lol)

Seriously, I would agree that the qualities of a particular lens may be unique, and may sometimes be discernable in the final print, but sometimes not. Those subtleties don't always translate to reduced-size Web presentations of the image, either.

At the risk of over-generalization, however, my impression is that there is a difference in optical design philosophy that is apparent between Leica and Nikon, to continue your comparison. Having shot Nikons for close to 40 years, I've generally found that Nikon lenses are either very precise in their character, or just plain bad. In contrast, Leica lenses seem to have been designed with certain image qualities or "character" in mind, so even the "bad" Leica lenses produce "good" images. That "character" seems to translate to the final image more often, or is at least more easily discerned than the unvarnished precision of a good Nikon lens.

So, for illustrative purposes, is the following a Leica image, or a Nikon image?

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 17, 2002.

I LOVE the picture or the Rhinoceros.I think it would have been better with a Reid & Sigrist and a Tayllr & Hodson Lens.Ha Ha Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

-- richard brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), March 17, 2002.

I'd say a Nikon ...

(Micro-Nikkor?)

I'm curious about that rgds Luca Fioretti

-- Luca Fioretti (luca.fioretti@libero.it), March 17, 2002.

Ralph,Nikon 60mm Micro F5.6 Kodak CN400

-- richard brown (rubyvalentine@earthlink.net), March 17, 2002.

I'll tell you what that water faucet is! It's a 72dpi Jpeg. The internet is the great equalizer. Most everything looks bad on it. If we are to be reduced to "showing" on the web, then I'm dumping all this wallet starving equipment and moving to a digital Elph. Now there's a real camera that'll level all these web competitions.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), March 17, 2002.

So, for illustrative purposes, is the following a Leica image, or a Nikon image?

Definitely a Nikon image. The OOF handle on the left is giving me a headache looking at it. Square bokeh.

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), March 17, 2002.

Marc,

Actually, it's a 300dpi JPEG, not 72dpi. Remember, they're just pixels, the display size of which is controlled by the resolution setting of your monitor. DPI only affects printed output, and the size of the input scan. Otherwise, it's just data carried along in the header of the JPEG file.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 17, 2002.

it is certainly the case that you generally cannot put two photos side by side and divine leica or nikon. there are too many variables that determine the quality of an individual print. equally true, however, is that over time certain lenses seem to give, on average, better results than other lenses. if you shoot enuff photos, and maintain documentation about those that make it into your portfolios, i bet you will see that certain lenses account for a disproportionate number of the keepers. for me, in 35mm (which admittedly is only about ten percent of my production these days), leica seems to give better results over time than other systems. i am sure this is due in part to the greater focus accuracy of the rf in the focal length/distnace range that suits it, but i also think the lenses have a special quality.

-- roger michel (michel@tcn.org), March 17, 2002.

The manager of the Sarbers Photo here in Albany California did a test last year comparing some of his Leica M lenses to Contax G ones and I got a chance to see the original 8X10 color prints from negs. Each image was taken on a tripod, same settings and film, same developing, etc. All of the images were very sharp--which of course was to be expected. The ones taken with the Leica had a bit lower contrast, and had noticeably more shadow detail. It's the only time I actually saw a really accurate A/B test comparing two brands of lenses that showed differences in a controlled way. By the way, I can't really say which images were "better", but they were different.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 17, 2002.

My guess is that the faucet pix was taken with a Leica and scanned on a Nikon scanner. Leica scanners really suck. Ever since they started making them in Portugal the qc has tanked.

Older pre-ASPH Leica scanners were the cat's meow. Except for the double stroke model which was very fussy.

Now that the Leica scanners have batteries, the world will surely end.

I'd scan everything with a Nikon if I owned one.

The real question is whether Ralph can guess the type of monitor I use to look at the picture.

Answer--Optiquest.

But Ralph probably already knew, since he won't post to an inferior monitor.

As GW Bush Sr. says--just wouldn't be prudent.

-- David Smith (dssmith3@rmci.net), March 17, 2002.

David: I had a heck of a time figuring out just the right HTML to be able to display the image only on certain monitors, but I'm glad it worked for you.

However, it was shot with a Nikon - a 60mm Micro Nikkor at about f4 on a D1, in fact. Even my 50mm DR 'Cron wouldn't get close enough to give me the perspective I wanted, so I resorted to the Nikon.

John: If I'm looking at the right thing, the square bokeh you mention is a reflection of a window which just happens to have that shape. I'll e-mail you some aspirin, however. ;-)

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 18, 2002.