Re: COPY: Re: [Leica] Leica lens still superior???

[Five Senses Productions <fls@home.com>]

Can someone tell me which NIKON lenses from 20mm to 180mm are 
THE BEST Nikon lenses available today?  I would like to know which
Nikon AF lenses are comparable to and/or better than Leica lenses......

Francesco




>You're already off on the wrong foot. Leica lenses ARE very well made, and
>they tend to be of consistent high quality -- partly because at their
>prices, they don't have to engineer any "economy" lenses into their lineup.
>But as to a blanket statement that they're "optically superior" --
>well,they aren't, and never were.The best lenses of other makers have
>always been able to match or exceed the performance of Leica lenses. In
>fact, from the '30s through '50s, the camera preferred by optical
>cognosceti was the Zeiss-Ikon Contax. The Leica was smaller, more
>comfortable, more dependable, and more convenient to operate -- but even
>Leica buffs recognized that overall, its lenses were more "good enough"
>than "stellar." There were only a few Leica lenses recognized as equal to
>their Carl Zeiss counterparts -- the original 50mm f/3.5 Elmar and the
>105/6.3 "Alpine" Elmar, to name two.
>In the late '40s and early '50s, photographers traveling through Asia
>discovered that the re-emergent Japanese optical industry was beginning to
>turn out lenses superior to Leica's -- the 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.5
>Nikkors and the 85mm f/1.9 Canon Serenar were among the star performers
>that helped build the Japanese industry's reputation. Since many of these
>lenses were available in Leica screw thread mounts, significant numbers of
>noted photojournalists dumped their Leitz optics and re-equipped with a mix
>of Nikon and Canon glass.
>It was only in the mid-'50s, when Leitz introduced its computer-designed
>Summicron lens series to go with the then-new M3 camera, that Leica lenses

>began to be regarded as at the forefront of optical performance. Even then,
>though, they were simply recognized as being as good as the best -- never
>"FAR MORE superior optically" to top-grade competitors.
>When the Zeiss-Ikon Contax went out of production in 1961 -- taking its
>superb lens line with it -- Leica was left with a clearer field for its
>reputational myth-making. Meanwhile, as the spread between Leica prices and
>the prices of "ordinary" cameras grew larger and larger, the proportion of
>the population that had actually used a Leica or its lenses became smaller
>and smaller -- further contributing to its cult status. In the '40s and
>'50s, when many photographers were familiar with it, the Leica had been
>regarded simply as one of the best 35mm cameras; as it grew more and more
>out of reach, it became a less a working tool and more a cult object.
>Photographers yearning for certainty in an uncertain art form felt more
>comfortable believing that there was one "best" camera and one "best" line
>of lenses, and that Leica was it. Since few of them had ever had the chance
>to bang around with a Leica, or compare pictures taken with its lenses to
>those taken with other brands, there was nothing to give them a "reality
>check" on their beliefs. And photographers who DID use Leicas -- at least
>some of whom bought in for status reasons, or because of their own fixed
>beliefs in Leica superiority -- certainly weren't about to disabuse the
>masses of their illusions.
>And that's about where it stands today. When you pay those big bucks for a
>Leica lens, you can be pretty sure you're getting something that's
>mechanically very well-made, durable, and that performs consistently and
>well. And, as someone else noted, many photographers prefer some of the
>intangible characteristics of Leica lenses, such as their color rendition
>and appearance of out-of-focus areas. But as to their being "far superior"
>optically to the best lenses from Nikon or Canon... or, for that matter,
>from Carl Zeiss or Pentax or Minolta... it just ain't so, and never was.
>
>>
>Reply : when I see the shower of 4- and 5-stars that present Leica lenses
>received after MTF tests made by the french review Chasseur d'images (CI),
>I must admit even if I'm not a Leica fanatic that there is an optical
>superiority of most Leica lenses.BTW you mention the Nikkor 2.5/105 as
>"superior to Leica". The MTF test made by CI shows it is a pure myth.So
there!
>In the past, MTF tests did not exist. So the rating of a lens was entirely
>subjective and the consumer had to believe the manufacturer or the rumor.If
>one day a great photographer, a big gun of the Leica, was  under the
>weather and said that "a serenar is superior to an elmar", the whole gang
>of yes-men followed.Today hot air does work neither for Leica nor for the
>others.
>As a conclusion, let me tell you a story. A few months ago, the french
>photographer Guy Le Querrec had all his Leica gear stolen.He advertised in
>CI writing he wanted a summicron 35, 2nd type with 6 elements.A rumor was
>launched : the 2nd type is better than the 3rd type (last type before the

>asph). CI published a text saying that Guy Le Querrec "didn't give a flying
>fuck about the optical quality" (sic)but "was only accustomed to the
>focusing lever of the summicron".That's all folks.
>
>Dominique Pellissier
>