From what I've read here the past months, people rave about Leica's optics-it's the reason to own the cameras. Given that, why are some people buying equivalent focal length lenses fron other companies? If you can afford the system in the first place, why buy these cheaper mass produced lenses?

To us, it's like buying a Porsche and putting snow tires on it.

-- Allison Reese (a_b_reese3@hotmail.com), May 17, 2002

Answers

There is no "best." Different lenses have different looks. Some are preferable to other lenses, some aren't. It's never "one size fits all" if we are talking about creative work. Medium format gives better negatives than 35mm. Why isn't everyone using that all the time. etc etc etc

By the way, if I had a Porsche and lived where it snows, I'd put snow tires on it in the winter.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), May 17, 2002.

One might re-phrase the question as: "since the latest generation of Leica lenses is clearly the best, why would anyone bother with older Leica lenses?"

If I were wanting to try a 400mm lens for the first time, a used 400mm f/6.8 makes more sense than a modular APO-Telyt; if, after using the f/6.8 I find a need for the current lens and an inheritance then the modular APO-Telyt is a viable consideration.

Besides, there are many reasons to use a Leica, the lenses among them; but for some people and some circumstances it's a secondary consideration.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 17, 2002.

Leica lenses are very expensive. Some are clearly better than other brands and some are less clearly better. Some focal lengths are infrequently used by some photographers. Some people believe everything they read in Compendiums and on websites, some don't. All good reasons for owning/not owning only Leica lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 17, 2002.

Being that I have need of a 21mm about once a year why would I pay 6 times the price of a Leica over a Voigtlander? Poor economics. And bye-the-way, though I didn't drive my Alfa Romeo much in the winter (I live in Edmonton, Canada - lots of snow), when I did it sure had an aggresive pattern snow/mud tire on it.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

Hmm never thought of that. I drive a Subaru and use Hexanon lenses. Maybe I would take better pictures if I got a Porsche.

-- Nick (nickr@extentech.com), May 17, 2002.

For me I'd say it's a type of philosophy or religion type of thing. I love Leica M stuff. I want the mechanical precision and timeliness. Of course there are other brands which are, let's say three quarters as good but only cost one fifth as much. If I can afford Leica, I get it. If I can't afford it, I don't buy it, and don't have any "cheap substitute" in the meantime. Even if that substitute is very cheap or not at all cheap. Has something to do with being a Leicaholic etc. Our car is a VW and I usually only drive a bike. That BTW just doesn't interest me enough.

-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), May 17, 2002.

I took this with a leica...anyone know what lens i used..?



-- grant (lotusphotography@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

Grant...please tell us. I have no idea.

People use Leicas for reasons other than the optics. Not all Leica optics are top grade.

I got back into the SM Leicas because of their size, very quiet handling, reliability, and simple good looks (at least to me).

-- Todd Frederick (Fredrick@hotcity.com), May 17, 2002.

>> One might re-phrase the question as: "since the latest generation of Leica lenses is clearly the best, why would anyone bother with older Leica lenses?"<<

…Says Douglas, I think his way to re-phrase the question is more precise than the original assumption.

If you don’t mind I will put all the aesthetic considerations aside which can justify – for example – the use of older Leica lenses for a question of particular fingerprint.

The answer to re-formulated question is both simple and complicated.

As a first approach I propose we can agree we have not to pay for something we can’t see.

Practically speaking, the Leica lenses might be the best on a test bench but if this superiority doesn’t show practically why bother to buy a very expensive lens ?

If you’ve read carefully most serious Leica lenses tests, it would have been readily apparent for some of them that their superiority in terms of resolution won’t be revealed if you don’t use a heavy tripod and a slow to very slow film. Something I think is rather uncommon for an M (and for all intent and purpose any SFRF user) and which pertains more to the large or medium format worlds.

Next is the problem of the wide open performances which actually pertain to the SFRF world. Most Leica lenses of today are very performing at full aperture. This is fine (and sometimes necessary) as far as the more usual focal lengths are concerned. But sometimes this inherent advantage can be a liability. Some Leica lenses are known to perform very well (and above the average) at wide apertures but these performances then decline when the aperture is closed, even before the usual limits of diffraction appears, to a less than average result. In some other cases, YOU, the user, know perfectly the wide aperture offered will be an overkill for the kind of usage you attribute to a focal length and besides the question of the price, surfaces the question of volume and weight. This point is very well illustrated by the 21mm f/2.8, a lens few will probably use wide open anyway and which is a cumbersome lens. If you need a 21 mm (even if you use it more than 2 or 3 times a year) but you know you’ll use this lens only between f/5.6 and f/8 the edge in performance of the Leica lens won’t really surface for all practical purpose from a “lowly” Voigtländer Color Skopar f/4 if you use an average film speed… So why pay for what you won’t see?…

A final example – besides the question of precise focusing a lens like the 75mm Summilux f/1.4 wide open with a 0.58 Leica M (or an Hexar RF) – this very expensive lens is heavy and rather cumbersome not only when in use but to carry in your bag. If you don’t NEED the very wide aperture offered, with the tests in hand you’ll find the 75mm Color Heliar again from V-länder with its f/2.5 aperture is a lens of an above the average quality when used from f/4 which might not equals the Leica Summilux lens but in real life, hand held and with an average film sensitivity the difference will hardly shows. Again, why pay much more for what you won’t see ? And why bother to carry a heavy and cumbersome lens when the alternative will just suit your needs?

Conversely, some focal length will be “sensitive” enough to amply justify the price to pay for a genuine Leica M lens… For me they are 35 mm, 50 mm and to a certain extent 90 mm. Sometimes even a second hand lens will be superior to what is offered by a third party (50 mm f/2 Summicron comes to my mind) or there is no valuable alternative at all (24 mm for example as the V-länder corresponding 25 mm lens is not rangefinder coupled) or 135 mm as this focal length is not covered by any third party at all and the f/4Tele- Elmar is almost equal to the present f/3.4 Apo and MUCH cheaper to buy).

As a general rule, if I can afford the Leica lens I will be tempted to buy it unless the third party offer is both of a high quality level and really different in its capabilities (provided this difference serves my way of taking pictures of course) and in any case for those lenses which are liable to be used frequently wide open I’m only confident in Leica products.

Well, now for the car example… I don’t think the present M bodies could be assimilated to a Porsche a Ferrari or anything like that… The Leica lenses are the high performance cars and the body the pneumatics… And I found out that another trade mark of pneumatics doesn’t really affect the results most of the time… Sometimes they might be even better… But this is another story…

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 17, 2002.

>> One might re-phrase the question as: "since the latest generation of Leica lenses is clearly the best, why would anyone bother with older Leica lenses?"<<

…Says Douglas, I think his way to re-phrase the question is more precise than the original assumption.

If you don’t mind I will put all the aesthetic considerations aside which can justify – for example – the use of older Leica lenses for a question of particular fingerprint.

The answer to re-formulated question is both simple and complicated.

As a first approach I propose we can agree we have not to pay for something we can’t see.

Practically speaking, the Leica lenses might be the best on a test bench but if this superiority doesn’t show practically why bother to buy a very expensive lens ?

If you’ve read carefully most serious Leica lenses tests, it would have been readily apparent for some of them that their superiority in terms of resolution won’t be revealed if you don’t use a heavy tripod and a slow to very slow film. Something I think is rather uncommon for an M (and for all intent and purpose any SFRF user) and which pertains more to the large or medium format worlds.

Next is the problem of the wide open performances which actually pertain to the SFRF world. Most Leica lenses of today are very performing at full aperture. This is fine (and sometimes necessary) as far as the more usual focal lengths are concerned. But sometimes this inherent advantage can be a liability. Some Leica lenses are known to perform very well (and above the average) at wide apertures but these performances then decline when the aperture is closed, even before the usual limits of diffraction appears, to a less than average result. In some other cases, YOU, the user, know perfectly the wide aperture offered will be an overkill for the kind of usage you attribute to a focal length and besides the question of the price, surfaces the question of volume and weight. This point is very well illustrated by the 21mm f/2.8, a lens few will probably use wide open anyway and which is a cumbersome lens. If you need a 21 mm (even if you use it more than 2 or 3 times a year) but you know you’ll use this lens only between f/5.6 and f/8 the edge in performance of the Leica lens won’t really surface for all practical purpose from a “lowly” Voigtländer Color Skopar f/4 if you use an average film speed… So why pay for what you won’t see?…

A final example – besides the question of precise focusing a lens like the 75mm Summilux f/1.4 wide open with a 0.58 Leica M (or an Hexar RF) – this very expensive lens is heavy and rather cumbersome not only when in use but to carry in your bag. If you don’t NEED the very wide aperture offered, with the tests in hand you’ll find the 75mm Color Heliar again from V-länder with its f/2.5 aperture is a lens of an above the average quality when used from f/4 which might not equals the Leica Summilux lens but in real life, hand held and with an average film sensitivity the difference will hardly shows. Again, why pay much more for what you won’t see ? And why bother to carry a heavy and cumbersome lens when the alternative will just suit your needs?

Conversely, some focal length will be “sensitive” enough to amply justify the price to pay for a genuine Leica M lens… For me they are 35 mm, 50 mm and to a certain extent 90 mm. Sometimes even a second hand lens will be superior to what is offered by a third party (50 mm f/2 Summicron comes to my mind) or there is no valuable alternative at all (24 mm for example as the V-länder corresponding 25 mm lens is not rangefinder coupled) or 135 mm as this focal length is not covered by any third party at all and the f/4Tele- Elmar is almost equal to the present f/3.4 Apo and MUCH cheaper to buy).

As a general rule, if I can afford the Leica lens I will be tempted to buy it unless the third party offer is both of a high quality level and really different in its capabilities (provided this difference serves my way of taking pictures of course) and in any case for those lenses which are liable to be used frequently wide open I’m only confident in Leica products.

Well, now for the car example… I don’t think the present M bodies could be assimilated to a Porsche a Ferrari or anything like that… The Leica lenses are the high performance cars and the body the pneumatics… And I found out that another trade mark of pneumatics doesn’t really affect the results most of the time… Sometimes they might be even better… But this is another story…

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), May 17, 2002.

Allison, I think your post has elicited some exceptionally insightful answers/responses, but if you've been reading the posts (here) for some time, you should know that the Leica is celebrated for other features in addition to the superb optics. I tend to think the Leicas have a unique "personality" which seems to promote an intimate, straight-forward "rapport" with the subject, and I think this "personality" is a blend of a variety of factors and attributes (which others have already described well and at length).

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), May 17, 2002.

1st of all, not everyone buys Leicas just for the optics, excellent as they are. The primary reason I own Leica Ms is that I think they have the best viewfinders of any RF available in the market (better than any other RF I've used, anyway); they are perfect for low-light shooting, which is my favorite form of photography. If Cosina, Konica, Kyocera or whoever could duplicate the M3's viewfinder/rangefinder mechanism & match it w/the rest of a Bessa R/R2, Hexar RF, or G2 body, I would probably have bought 1 instead of a Leica. I care much less about the other benefits provided by the Leica Ms, e.g., quiet shutter, high-quality construction, etc., many of which were equalled or surpassed by other RF cameras starting back in the 1930s.

2nd, different lenses provide different looks & those lens "fingerprints" can't be easily duplicated using Photoshop, filters, etc. So, in addition to the cost/benefit factors mentioned by others here, the current Leica lenses, no matter how good they may be, may be incapable of producing the look you want to achieve in a picture. For similar reasons, I don't always shoot w/Tech Pan & a tripod.

-- Chris Chen (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 17, 2002.

"I took this with a leica...anyone know what lens i used..?"

Okay, I'll bite. 35mm pre-asph Lux?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), May 17, 2002.

Either you're thinking about nonsense like this OR you're thinking about your next shot. I think about my next shot. "Mommy! I see PICTURES!! (A little play on the "Sixth Sense," for those of you who don't "get it") Leitz M6, Elmar-M 50mm 1:2.8, B+W KR1.5 MRC, Fuji Sensia II 200, Polaroid SprintScan 4000:

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), May 17, 2002.

To give a blanket claim all Leica lenses are better is a bit over the top without testing EVERY lens in EVERY focal length out there. It would also mean that users of non current Leica lenses are using inferior stuff and should update! (Leica would love you though)I have often found that other manufactures offer a product better "for me" than the Leica one. As mentioned often I stopped using my M3 and went more compact CL/CLE. I have found that Voigtlander offers a better lens for these cameras than the Leica ones. (I sold my pres-asph 21 f2.8 for a Voigtlander 21 f4 for example) I use a 21 more than ever before because i can carry it all the time with me. I now am able to carry twice the amount of cameras and lenses which pack neatly into a small pelican box. Ive taken in to Macquarie Island in the Antartic and through rain forest in Asia. If the Voigtlander stuff is even in erwins eyes better optically than all but the current Leica lenses and in some case matches the current Leica lenses (ie the 50 f1.5 and 90 f3.5) your not off target to good pictures. A couple of friends who all use one M type or another like to guess which pictures were Leica lenses and which are not. The only lens that ever gets guess correct consistantly is the 15mm cause there is no Leica M lens in 15mm. That ends with another reason to buy alternate brands you cant always get the focal length you want in the same brand as your camera. I think the 75 Voigtlander is a good example here, many want to use this frameline in their M but a Leica 1.4 is useless in size and price and userbility for less acurate finders. Its why Voigtlander offer this lens, to fill a gap that exists for users. Leica lenses are NOT always better for ALL people. It shouldnt be insinuated pictures will be inferior unless they are taken on Leica lenses because it just isnt the case. I get my best results mixing and matching to my style of shooting.

-- Joel Matherson (joel_2000@hotmail.com), May 18, 2002.

"The camera is not important. Just take the pictures you really cared for".

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

For the record, I didn't say the above.

-- Yossi (yosslee@yahoo.com), May 19, 2002.

Some third party lenses serve very well and the results are indistinguishable from Leica except under very close examination. The reasons people buy non-Leica lenses are many:
- can't afford Leica prices;
- Leica doesn't make the required lens (e.g. 12mm or 15mm for LTM or M);
- a Leica lens is deemed inferior to a third party offering (particularly true of lenses for LTM, where Voigtlander's modern lenses blow away most Leica LTM lenses);
- the buyer actually prefers some characteristic of the third party lens. BTW, when you say "To us, it's like buying a Porsche and putting snow tires on it" are you using the "royal we" or is there some other person involved?

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), May 20, 2002.

Allison; Sometimes the off brand optics are good enough for the job; where the job is risky for you or your camera.. I brought my Leningrad LSM motor drive and 50mm F2 Jupiter-8 to a Hockey Game. To get better pictures I was not shooting thru the scratched rink glass. The robust russian Brick; & me were in the players box..Since I was playing that night in the adult league I had on full gear; JOFA pads; EASTON gloves; ITECH shin pads; CCM Helmet; JOFA wire cage...CCM skates..

The Leningrad's motor drive allows up to 12 shots on one wind. It can be wound with hockey gloves on; with some effort. I can fire the release with the right glove on..The left hand risks getting hit by a stray puck; but is usefull to focus the lens.. The viewfinder is only partially usable with the JOFA wire cage on..Lifting the cage allows full viewing. The Leningrad and Jupiter-9 are big enough to protect ones eyes from a wild puck..The framelines are inside for the 5, 8.5, 13.5 cm lenses.. The 85mm F2 Jupiter-9 is good in resolution; but fair in contrast wide open; Jupiter-9's are many times pure duds; It takes alot of effort to get a good one that focuses correctly. It took me three tries to get one.. They are very very light in weight.The Russian Rangefinders are very basic and stout. Sometimes I feel the Leica crowd prefers to keep their fine china/leicas locked up just for Holidays....The russian stuff will never be super collectors items; therefore they many times offer better value; if one masters their weirdness..... More Russian Leica clones are around than Leicas.....

The common 50mm F2 Jupiter-8 is ususally a good lens; again it may take going thru a few to get a winner..My grand chrome Summicron 50mm F2 #11619 doesnt fit on the Leningrad; Its waist diameter is too big around; also the canon 50mm F1.2 will not fit the Leningradfor the same reason.......If the Summicron did fit; I probably would not risk it....I have been hit by a puck; It may hurt.... One hit my inner thigh ; it left a big red welt 3 inches in diameter; which is the pucks size.... Leningrad's lens flange is recessed into its camera body a few mm..

Maybe a brand new M7 and 90mm F2 ASPH would be better;.. to throw it "in the wall hole" during line change would be hairy..I dont think all the hockey spit & wall roughness would good for a new leica either... The lighting is damn poor for amateur games; they only turn on one set or arena lights; instead of both sets for the pro games.... Typical exposures are f2 @ 1/125 ASA 800.. YES it is the wrong camera.. An CANON EOS or NIKON SLR with an autofocus 50mm or 85MM F2 lens and motordrive usable with hockey gloves would be much better..Maybe someday they will cost only 150 dollars; and I will get one.....The Leningrad shutter appears to be very robust.. The web links seem to label it as poor. There is no film sprocket on the Leningrad; the gap between frames varies between the begining and the end of the roll...The Leningrad shutter is loud as hell..Typical Leningrad Camera on Ebay

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 20, 2002.

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 20, 2002.

?

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), May 20, 2002.