Leica lens... Hype, Science or Art?

[Nick Morrison]

Sorry, if I seamed to lump the 2 lens sets together. I know clearly that the Cs and Rs are not the same lenses.

I have always heard that the Rs, as all Leicas, have amazing contrast and are very sharp. I was surprised to hear that the Rs are not as sharp as reported. This made me wonder why they are so highly praised. Do the particular artifacts, made from not being sharp, along with the contrast, make the images very beautiful and the lenses so revered? I will admit, I suspected that Leica's special sauce would be applied to the Summilux C primes, in some degree. You said, the Cs are "optically superb" that would make the look of the images much different form the Rs.

Thank you for your comment.

I think a lot of the Leica "special sauce" comes from their coatings, to be honest. Leica R's by and large ARE very sharp, and are amazing optically. I can't remember the specifics of that SALT Test, but vaguely I remember that some of the Leica's didn't KILL on the tests as much as everyone thought they would (none were bad), but then in practical use they were still GREAT. So again, it's the real world application vs the cold scientific tests. Sometimes shooting charts don't tell you everything.

By and large everyone who owns Leica R's seems to love with them. We've done two shoots with them (one of our DP colleagues has a set), and I think they are AWESOME.

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Anyone is more than welcome to check out my R lenses if you want to see for yourself.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Is this the Ludwig II trailer you are referring to?

If so I watched it in 720p

Thanks

Yes thats it there is a 1080 version available too. Clearly it much better seeing this in a theatre.

 

[Dave Blackham]

I think a lot of the Leica "special sauce" comes from their coatings, to be honest. Leica R's by and large ARE very sharp, and are amazing optically. I can't remember the specifics of that SALT Test, but vaguely I remember that some of the Leica's didn't KILL on the tests as much as everyone thought they would (none were bad), but then in practical use they were still GREAT. So again, it's the real world application vs the cold scientific tests. Sometimes shooting charts don't tell you everything.

By and large everyone who owns Leica R's seems to love with them. We've done two shoots with them (one of our DP colleagues has a set), and I think they are AWESOME.

Id agree. There are various lenses with R mount including some 'Apo' lenses, the 15mm, 90mm amongst them. Sharpness is important but it isnt everything a lens has to offer. In practice Leica R's have no issue with sharpness.

 

[Mathias Erichsen]

Great thread!
I have a set of Leica-R lenses and absolutely love them, but lately I have read so much regarding how spectacular Canon FD and Contax Zeiss are that I have started to think that my Leica's may not be as good as I hoped...
Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that my lenses are tecnicaly good enough after all

 

[Uli Plank]

There is Leica style, Zeiss style and probably FD style, I'd say. They all show some of the disadvantages of still lenses, but nevertheless we are talking very good glass here.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Great thread!
I have a set of Leica-R lenses and absolutely love them, but lately I have read so much regarding how spectacular Canon FD and Contax Zeiss are that I have started to think that my Leica's may not be as good as I hoped...
Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that my lenses are tecnicaly good enough after all

I think they are all good stills lenses. It all has its use depending on the subject and style of whats needed. If given only one set of the three I like the look of Leica but you may prefer a different style. Its about taste i think. Its worth considering non of the lenses have cinema grade mechanics but I think the focus throw on Leica is a little longer than the Canon or Contax.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Great thread!
I have a set of Leica-R lenses and absolutely love them, but lately I have read so much regarding how spectacular Canon FD and Contax Zeiss are that I have started to think that my Leica's may not be as good as I hoped...
Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that my lenses are tecnicaly good enough after all

Contax Zeiss and Leica R were HEAD TO HEAD competitors, like Mercedes and BMW. THey are both superb. Your Leica R's are awesome. They give a GORGEOUS look.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I think they are all good stills lenses. It all has its use depending on the subject and style of whats needed. If given only one set of the three I like the look of Leica but you may prefer a different style. Its about taste i think. Its worth considering non of the lenses have cinema grade mechanics but I think the focus throw on Leica is a little longer than the Canon or Contax.

Leica R focus throws seemed the same as Contax to me. They are both smooth 180 to 360 degrees generally.

 

[Stephen Mick]

Contax Zeiss and Leica R were HEAD TO HEAD competitors, like Mercedes and BMW. THey are both superb. Your Leica R's are awesome. They give a GORGEOUS look.

Agreed. I had a set of Leica-R lenses, and the second I sold them I regretted it. Now I've put together a fresh set, and these aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[eric schneider]

Contax Zeiss and Leica R were HEAD TO HEAD competitors, like Mercedes and BMW. THey are both superb. Your Leica R's are awesome. They give a GORGEOUS look.

Agreed as well. I think that they both offer some nice things. I own sets of the Contax and the Leica R's too and for Leica-R's, I think it is the color rendition that I like from these lenses (and I think thats from the coating too) and I think there is much more resolving power in Leica-R's than they are given credit for. And I think Zeiss Z'/CF's/Contax all have much more micro contrast, which also helps provide a more apparent sharpness. All depends on the project and the look one is going for. Not sure why they performed subpar on the SALT tests, but then again, that is just one round of tests.

 

[Matt Ryan]

I'm still a fan of Super Speeds but I have an immense love for the Leica C's after the tests we performed. Great lenses all around. The way they render out of focus is absolutely beautiful.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

We should probably separate the Leica lens discussion between all their still lenses and the Summilux cinema lenses.

The Summilux cinema lenses were designed by Leica and Iain Neal who designed the Panavision Primo series of lenses (using much Leica elements )

Sony seems to believe their F65 looks best with these primes as they insisted I use them when testing the camera alongside the Epic and Alexa.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

We should probably separate the Leica lens discussion between all their still lenses and the Summilux cinema lenses.

The Summilux cinema lenses were designed by Leica and Iain Neal who designed the Panavision Primo series of lenses (using much Leica elements )

Sony seems to believe their F65 looks best with these primes as they insisted I use them when testing the camera alongside the Epic and Alexa.

Indeed Peter, even so the S series of Still Medium Format glass have truly amazed and continue to maze, as possibly the best Still glass ever made by any company... Their Cine Glass is to be regarded and classified and talked about as a completely separate matter all together.

 

[Björn Benckert]

This might be totally wrong but I was told if I remember correctly the Leica M's are actually not warping the light going trough them, basically the nodal point of the lens is equal to the distance from the sensor. Which is very odd among lenses. For this reason there are no really wide M's and also the given light path makes the light hit the sensor on quite a high angle for wider lenses. That Leica has compensated on their digital M cameras by aiming the photosites towards a nodal point instead of straight forward as normal sensors are built.

For their other lenses they have made great effort of making the light path be as straight as possible which apparently is very difficult thing to achieve and gives them all the unique Leica look. Then they are offcourse very well built and such but it's the light path that makes a leica lens most different from the rest. Please if somebody here knows more about this than me or have some good reading about it please share.

 

[Dave Blackham]

This might be totally wrong but I was told if I remember correctly the Leica M's are actually not warping the light going trough them, basically the nodal point of the lens is equal to the distance from the sensor. Which is very odd among lenses. For this reason there are no really wide M's and also the given light path makes the light hit the sensor on quite a high angle for wider lenses. That Leica has compensated on their digital M cameras by aiming the photosites towards a nodal point instead of straight forward as normal sensors are built.

For their other lenses they have made great effort of making the light path be as straight as possible which apparently is very difficult thing to achieve and gives them all the unique Leica look. Then they are offcourse very well built and such but it's the light path that makes a leica lens most different from the rest. Please if somebody here knows more about this than me or have some good reading about it please share.

That is interesting about the light path. I had some R lenses serviced recently by Red Dot cameras in the UK (very good work too and not expensive) and a brocure was included on return of the lenses for the new m camera. It is mentioned here that the micro lenses on the sensor are larger radius so light can be captured more precicely by light incoming to the lens at larger angles.

http://leicarumors.com/2012/09/19/the-24mp-max-sensor-inside-the-new-leica-m-is-mabe-by-cmosis.aspx/

I realise M lenses were built for film but it may be that M lenses of wider angle of view could now be built if the sensor is able to cope better with the light path from m lenses. Where as previously this may not have been possible. Interestingly the new M camera has an adaptor for R lenses. I am hoping this will not mean another price hike for the much loved R and m lenses.

 

[Timothy Jones]

Leica does make wide M lenses . I have an incredible Leica M Tri Elmar 16-21. Killer lens .

Thanks,
Tim
www.tjphoto.net

 

[Chad Lancaster]

Some super wide love

 

[Uli Plank]

A lens which has a longer flange distance than it's focal length must be constructed as retrofocus. That's very different design with some complications (like barrel distortion) and it applies to wide Leica-R lenses, since that was a SLR camera. Pioneered by Angénieux, BTW.

Actually, it's easier to construct a non-retrofocus lens, which applies to the Leica-M lenses – they are made for rangefinder cameras. They existed even earlier than the other designs. Unfortunately, the sensor box on REDs is pretty deep, that's why even with a Leica-M adapter you can't fit most wides on our beloved ones.

And, yes, they can have some problems on a digital sensor, like the infamous red corners on some Sony NEX models due to the different light angle. Rangefinder wides are directing the light to the sensor's corners at a flatter angle than retrofocus ones. BTW, Voigtländer/Cosina has some really nice wides for Leica-M too, but again nothing for RED.

Leica-C wides are retrofocus for sure, since PL is pretty long.

 

[Matt Uhry]

I'm a bit of a Leica geek and was also involved in all of the mentioned testing.

The Leica C's are pretty amazing, at SALT 3 they were most of the testers favorites. Technically and aesthetically great, However as Mark Toia pointed out you would need to have a pretty spendy client base to make them pay back as quickly as other things you could buy. In my mind, without question they are the best all around set of primes out there.

The M's are storied lenses, and have great performance. Due to their small physical size and rapid focus throws they are pretty hard to use in a normal motion picture work. Many of the wider angels are impossible to mount on the Epic. If that was not enough the angle of incidence of the light on the sensor can give you some trouble at the edges of your shot. They are also quite expensive.

The R's are nice lenses too. My set was the one used in the SALT 2 stills test. They were mostly from the 80's and not always representing the latest versions. My objective was to put together a set that was good for high risk, high wear and tear jobs.- for instance it was the set I took to the Bolivian Altiplano last year. Spending much more money you could put together a higher performance set than what we tested. - the 28mm v2 and 50mm Summilux ( V2 ? ) ROM for instance, both nice, both around $2000, and did not meet my objective of being semi disposable. The R's make very very nice images, and have usable mechanical quality for motion picture work.

The more I test lenses the more I've had a chance to put things into perspective... A great set of lenses is not going to make your shots amazing any more than buying a great guitar will make you a great musician. Most of the time the quality and skills of the person shooting and pulling focus will have much more to do with your lenses looking sharp than the lenses will.


Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com