[normhead]

Hence, why I mentioned early, some lenses can produce those amazing pixie dust / 3d pop images - not will, but can

Such information is pretty much useless unless which Lieca lenses are specified. I'm willing to believe Lieca doesn't make cheaper options, but, I'd like to see Lieca compared to everyone else's top of the line. Do Lieca lenses pop compared to the three Amigos? I don't care if they pop compared to the kit lenses and one step better than kit. Now if they popped compared to the 31 43 and 77, that would be saying something.

I once saw a comparison by pop photography on the best lenses ever made, of the top 10 there was a Licea there, there were also a couple of Pentaxes, a Canon, Nikons and even a Sigma and another off brand. So, I read something like that and I wonder how it's possible. According to what I know, you get a result like that by not comparing best against best.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Seems we have quite the healthy discussion going here. So far suggested there is the da50, the 40xs, and the tamron/quantraray/pentax f-fa 28-90. Someone also mentioned the m42 35 3.5. So what else have we got?

[normhead]

Seems we have quite the healthy discussion going here. So far suggested there is the da50, the 40xs, and the tamron/quantraray/pentax f-fa 28-90. Someone also mentioned the m42 35 3.5. So what else have we got?

In support of the M42 35 3.5 it won this poll with 33% of the votes cast beating out both the DA 35 2.4 and Tamron 17-50 among others. A guy who bought a non-oentax camera threw it in as a freebie. He was using it with his Sony with an adapter and ended up buying a native lens in the focal length, so just threw it in so it had a good home. It's hard to beat a lens this good for free as a bargain.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/312892-your...mm-images.html

[monochrome]

Leica spends more money than anyone on it's extensive pixie nurseries.

[normhead]

Leica spends more money than anyone on it's extensive pixie nurseries.

So do it's customers.

IN 1954 my dad had a Lieca he'd lucked into stolen from his car ( he was a Ph.D student with a family at the time and had about 10 cents to his name.) . He cried about it until the day he died.

I have some archival film images from the 30s taken with Liecas. 80 years later you can still admire the IQ.

[pathdoc]

So do its customers.

Slightly OT, this is one of the things that annoys me HUGELY about Lomography. They sell these wonderful "art" lenses, but the price of admission into the Lomography Art Lens Club seems to be the purchase or possession by some other means of a Leica or compatible body (which so far as I can tell is not among the relatively cheap retro knockoffs they produce).

[Nicolas06]

Slightly OT, this is one of the things that annoys me HUGELY about Lomography. They sell these wonderful "art" lenses, but the price of admission into the Lomography Art Lens Club seems to be the purchase or possession by some other means of a Leica or compatible body (which so far as I can tell is not among the relatively cheap retro knockoffs they produce).

I don't get it, lomography sell very cheap cameras. You get medium frame camera starting at 100€ and a kit with 3 lenses for 200€...

As for the Art lenses, lomo sell adapter to put it on m4/3, Sony Nex or Fuji X mounts so you can likely get a used camera on one of theses mounts for less than 200$. And the Petzval are for Canon and Nikon mount... Again you can most likely find used Canon/nikon boies for less than 200€.

[TaoMaas]

Such information is pretty much useless unless which Lieca lenses are specified. I'm willing to believe Lieca doesn't make cheaper options, but, I'd like to see Lieca compared to everyone else's top of the line.

I realized after the fact that I forgot to mention that the guy whose images popped was shooting with a Leica rangefinder and using primo lenses. There was another person in the workshop who was shooting with a Leica SLR...also with great lenses...and that person's images didn't have the same snap to them. Or rather, they did have the same snap that the rangefinder guy's images had most of the time because not all the rangefinder images had that elusive quality. This was a workshop filled with newspaper photographers from around the country so pretty much all of them had great glass. 99% of the images shot that week were pretty even in IQ, including most of those shot by the guy with the Leica M-camera. But every once in a while, he'd have an image that had a whole lot of something extra to it.

[robgski]

There is no magic lens or camera, money can't buy, experience, patience, skill, talent. work on those things with whatever camera you have, and you will create better pictures in the end.