Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sat, 30 Aug 1997, Lucien_vD wrote: > Hi Dan and Detlef, > > You will not be surprised that I totaly desagree with you. > (BTW I have already own 3 Minolta + complete system, 3 CONTAX + complete > system, > 7 NIKON + complete system and 5 LEICA-R + complete system, + LEICA-M + > complete system) > There is a difference and the most obvious is with Minolta and the cheapest > Nikon lenses. I'd have to second this. I used to own an Olympus OM-2 and Zuiko lens and presently own a Contax and some Zeiss lenses as well as an M3 and a recent Summicron 50. I can see a difference between pictures shot with the cameras, particularly with low contrast films like Reala and black and white films. I have also shot identical subjects with slide film in with a Contax 159 and Zeiss Planar 50/1,7 and an M-3 and 50 Summicron and found that the images had a different feel. I have shown the images to other people who can also see a difference between them and who, without prompting, characterize the difference in a way that suggests that they are seeing what I am seeing and I have heard others with similar stories to report. I think that there is some qualitative difference to the feel of the images produced with Leica lenses, a difference that some people are more sensitive to than others. I wouldn't go so far as to proclaim that the different "feel" of the Leica lenses makes them better lenses in some objective way: it just makes them... different. I happen to like the look, but I also like the look produced by my Zeiss lenses too. Just my 2 cents worth Gary Toop