Leica Myth

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

Leica is coming slowly in this forum like fungus. Every day new member catch this dangerous virus. I had to check this intruder.

Today I checked a macro elmarit 60 37xx. Cloud and wind but I can give my first impressions

Good
Small, light & look solid enough
Leica is written on it

not so good
the focus barel is more far than other lens & I cannot put my left hand under the dslr body as with others manual lens when I focus
nothing exceptional wide open
chromatic aberration

I would never say NO for a leica, but it's have to do more with the MYTH than performance.

f5.6 no sharpening, 100% crop very good

f8 helios 44 vs leica; the helios have more contrast, good bokeh for the 2

100% crop, leica is better than helios but not by much

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Interesting results. Especially considering that the Elmarit 60 Macro is considered by many one of the best Leica lenses. Although, this must be kept in mind, Leica owes its reputation to the rangefinder lenses. At the camera fair of two weeks ago, a seller told me "Leica rangefinder lenses are really the best that exists. The reflex lenses, hmmm..."

In all fairness, I own 6 Leica reflex lenses, and they are all very good. No, actually, excellent.
I notice a difference between them, in that the Elmarits I have (35, 90, 135, 180) are sharp wide open, while the Summicrons (I have 50, 90) are soft wide open, but deliver a lot of 3D effect.

However, I can not say that they are significantly sharper than, for instance, my Contax lenses, or some of my best Nikon lenses (like 1.4/50) or Russian lenses (like Helios-40-2).
Actually, in some cases, like Sonnar 3.5/100, or Planar 2/135, I find the Contax to be sharper, even wide open.

What I think really sets Leica lenses a bit apart is their performance wide open (in the case of Elmarits), and their corner performance.
Something that can also be said of Contax lenses.
I took all my Carnevale pictures last Sunday, with an Elmarit 2.8/135 and a Planar 2/135, both very near to wide open, and honestly, the difference between them, and other very good 135 lenses that I have, is visible, because the other good lenses that I have would have given also this clarity and detail, but at f/5.6 or f/8.

-

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

Ballu · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject:

I think, there is not much difference in quality, specially wrt non specialized lenses among different manufacturer (Like Canon MP-E and T/S lenses are legendary).
One of the reason of using Russian and Tak lenses (for me) is, I dont get much by paying extra to Canon. And I like the feeling of my Manual Focus lenses.
You can say this in between manual focus lenses too. Pick any 135mm lens, you will beating any crappy AF zoom. Still Tak and Jup are different.
and after using Planar 50/1.7, I can say: that lens is of different league from Canon and other lenses...
I am getting my first Leica, so will able to find some myth/reality check (I dont have much hope though, how some lens can be much better than Jupiter and old Nikkor-P 105/2.5).

Net has lot of discussion on this., check this thread,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=26427053

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

poilu · Expire: 2019-08-29

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

Poilu

Thanks for those samples - I feel better now, since I do not have any Leica lenses. At this point I am uncertain about Helios also, because of my experience with a 40 described in another thread. BTW it is in its third complete day of baking in light UV.

Orio. Could not agree with you more about dpreview and the flimsy threads that are prevalent on that site. I think its popularity is its undoing, with the Lowest Common Denominator taking over. Also those scientific tests with lots of charts can tell you if a lens has the basic ingredients to be good, but "magical" is something you can only see in real life examples.

patrickh

Ballu · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject:

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

I think there is no really bad Leica lens. Most of the Leica lenses are even excellent glass (and I think there is quite a difference visible between the Leica and the Helios shot, although I agree the Helios is by no means a bad lens, which again only show how good the Leica lens really is...)

Anyway, the Leica myth has several sources:

- Some great photographers used Leica and so it crept into people's minds that is the gear that took these fantastic shots.
- Leica has always had an extremely strict quality controlling, thus you could always be sure that your Leica lens was no lemon.
- Leica has always asked for high prices. People tend to think that things that are expensive must be good.
- Leica gear is very pleasant to use. It's an awesome feeling to turn a Leica focus ring. You really "feel" that it went through a fantastic building process. When I used an M3 with a Summicron for the first time, I was simply amazed by the "haptical" impression. And of course...
- Leica lenses are excellent performers!

jamesdak · Joined: 20 Jun 2007 Posts: 59 Location: Utah, U.S.

Orio - good observations about dpreview. I do still check in there but it's mainly for an entertainment value than it is to actually learn anything. Still sometimes someone does come there honestly looking for help. I saw the post there about the 50mms. It was linked to another post in the k/M forum I still read as an older Minolta shooter. I too was amazed at the poor quality images being used as a sample of his "Minolta" color.

It's also hard to say anything about pictures posted there without being flames if you don't give a generic "it's great". Heck, I want people to tear my images up, it's the only way I get better. Yet there even those that say C & C welcome don't truly mean it.

But anyway, I'm hoping to catch some good light tonight after work to try out my two new Leica lenses. I hope th images are crappy so I won't be tempted to look for more, Laughing

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Lens is Carl Zeiss another ones just somebody make them LOL

vilva · Expire: 2015-05-27

Well, the Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/60 is a good all purpose lens, a slightly long "normal" when used on an FF body. It is a macro lens which also works well at infinity and is sharp corner to corner on FF, especially when slightly stopped down. If you look at the published data, at the full aperture it is slightly sharper than the CZ Sonnar 2.8/85 at the center and slightly worse off-center. At f/5.6 it is slightly better, also slightly better than the Planar 1.4/85 and much better than either of the 50 mm Planars - that is, much when we are speaking of very high quality lenses. When testing lenses at this level, even the slightest misalignment of the elements of the specific lens or a very minor focusing error will make a lot of difference in MTF and the perceived sharpness at the absolutely "sick" enlargement of a 100% crop on screen.

I've got a Macro-Elmarit and I've had nothing to complain about. I've also got a Sonnar 2.8/85, both the 50 mm Planars, an MC Volna-9 2.8/50 Macro and many other reasonably high quality 45-58 mm lenses. If I would have to choose to keep just one lens of this lot, I'd quite certainly choose the Macro-Elmarit.

Here is a link to a hand-held, unsharpened shot with the Macro-Elmarit on 5D, note the corner to corner performance at "infinity" and the reasonably low purple fringing:
http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos5d_files/e60_7423lz.jpg

As far as resolution is concerned, a 350D is slightly more demanding than a 5D. Here is link to my Macro-Elmarit on 350D page:
http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/eos350d_elmarit60.html

The linked full-size images are unsharpened. Note the very reasonable CA (is there any worth speaking of?) and the bokeh, which is quite good for a sharp lens.

Veijo

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

vilva · Expire: 2015-05-27

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03