Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Don't get me wrong, I own an M6 and I love it. It is however the Leica myth > that gives rise to a certain snobbery,... > Can anyone out there please enlighten me on the special qualities of the > Leica lens?? > --Adi Greetings, In my opinion, lenses from Leitz, and the better lenses from Canon and Nikon produce images which are indistinguishable from each other. While there are plenty of folks who claim to see some special quality in images made with Leitz optics, I'm not aware of any double blind testing having been done to prove Leitz's superiority. To me, the limiting factor in image quality these days is the size of the negative. I think the better 35mm optics are far superior to the film we have available. If there is some superiority to Leitz lenses, it's probably only measurable on an optical bench. If you can't capture the image on film, because of the limitations of grain, what difference does it make? The images I get with my Canon F-1 are every bit as good as those I get with my M4. However, I prefer using the Leica whenever possible because of the way it handles and it's small size. The M4 with a 35 Summicron fits in a much smaller space than the F-1 with the Canon 35mm FD lens. On a related note, there is a lot of fuss made by some about how wonderful some lens or another is at full aperture. While shooting at full aperture may make for an interesting effect at times, and may make it possible to get any image at all in some circumstances, most of the time it results in an image in which most of the subject is out of focus due to narrow depth of field. What good is all that resolving power to anything in the image that doesn't happen to be right on the plane of focus? Peter Jon White