[StiffLegged]

… there are very few people who would pay the price for a Leica lens and then not say it was the best lens they ever had.

and there will always be people with no actual knowledge of the glass who insist it’s nothing special anyway.

[richard0170]

I am constantly debating with myself if I really need the original FA 35mm F2 as a gap filler between the 21 and 40mm lenses.

I own the HD DA 40mm Ltd, an A 35mm f2 and HD FA 35mm f2. I would have got the FA 35mm f2 at the time of the latter's acquisition, but this HD one came up used at a good price so....

From my experience with these lenses, I enjoy them all. I do not use the 40mm so much these days even though it is my favourite of the Ltd range. I think it is down to the lack of grip it provides. Certainly nothing to do with its IQ, it gives slightly different colour rendition over my other Ltd's which I prefer. Optically I can't tell the difference in real world uses between either of the 35mm's. I really like both lenses. I doubt that you would see any difference between these and the original FA.
Which 35mm I choose to use depends on my mood - do I want to go MF for the user sensation or do I want AF convenience? FWIW I prefer either of these lenses over the 35mm Ltd. due to preferring the extra stop of speed over the macro capabilities of that lens. Others of course are going to prefer the Ltd's qualities. It depends on one's priorities.

I would not see the FA 35mm as a gap filler, it is too close in focal length to the 40mm for that. I would consider a 28mm to fill that role. The 35mm has merits in its own right. I would treat yourself to one, even though you probably do not "need" one, and enjoy using it.

[PenPusher]

I admit I know nothing about Leica cameras or lenses other than the "oohs" and "aahs" one reads on the web.

But being around as long as I have been around, I do know a little something about human natureSo not going very far out on the limb, I would venture to say there are very few people who would pay the price for a Leica lens and then not say it was the best lens they ever had.

I agree I would not be surprised if a lot of the praise is generated by buyers remorse, after paying thousands for a lens its going to be very difficult to say its not as good as you thought it was.

I have a Leica IIc made in 1951 upgraded sometime in the 1950's by its previous owner to a IIIf, cost me €120 plus a €180 service there is a similar one in the Leica Shop in Vienna at the moment made in 1948 for €420, it is a beautiful camera but a bit fiddly to use, I have a USSR turret viewfinder plus Japanese 50mm F2.0 and 35mm F2.8 lenses together with a 90mm F4 Leitz, I get the feeling (non scientific) that the Japanese ones are a little better but you would be hard put to tell.

A brand new Leica M-A plus 3 new Leitz similar focal lenses is going to cost around €9,000, there would need to be an awful lot of difference in results to justify that expenditure, and then I would not be one bit happy wandering around with such expensive gear.

I forgot to say that I don't like the colour images I have seen with modern Leica lenses B & W is fine and I think that in many peoples minds Leica is associated with B & W

CD

[normhead]

Nice topic! Two random data points.

1) Back in the early '80's I had the fortune to be lent a Lecia rangefinder for a couple of weeks. A joy for sure. At the end of it all, I loved the black and white work and never warmed up to the color rendition. Perhaps I'm Pentax biased, but it was just a touch too flat for me.

2) I'm on my second Panasonic Leica travel camera (DMX-ZS100). A super travel camera. The first one was literally beaten to death by 1000's of kilometers on bicycles all over the world. The second one - a China model - bought probably 3 years ago, has annoyed me occasionally with kind of flat (for me) colors. I've tried adjusting everything IN the camera.

At the end of the day I'm happily back in SMC Pentax land...

Weird, I have a ZS 1000 and I find the files to be overcooked even in raw. That being said, it does give images equivalent to my K-3 images (except for a serious DR deficiency) so, the lens must be really sharp to get that much resolution from such a small sensor.

[bdery]

Made in China still rings that bell that I have to do with a product of inferior quality.

That's not backed on experience. Manufacturing can be done anywhere with success, it's the processes you put in place which ensure quality. Companies I worked for had plants in many places, including Malaysia, Chine, etc. If your processes are robust, your instructions clear, your validations relevant, you'll get great output.

But being around as long as I have been around, I do know a little something about human natureSo not going very far out on the limb, I would venture to say there are very few people who would pay the price for a Leica lens and then not say it was the best lens they ever had.

Agreed 100%.

[normhead]

and there will always be people with no actual knowledge of the glass who insist it’s nothing special anyway.

If you'd like to put up a couple of comparative images to show it's special I'm sure we'd all be interested. Many of us will always remain sceptical of the value of lenses we don't own, simply because we can't test for ourselves.

I don't insist it's nothing special. But I've never seen anything that demonstrates the Lieca "specialness". I've had too many wealthy friends with Lieca gear to trust what Lieca owners say, with regards to how good their photos are. So, my opinion is still, "show me". I don't take anyone's word for anything. All claiming superiority without proof does is make me suspicious of the information people will accept when forming their judgments.

I'm not even sure there is such thing as a lens so good it will turn an ordinary picture into a masterpiece or even a good picture into a very good picture. To claim a lens does so without demonstrating why is definitely not cool. Maybe acceptable in the "wealthy geeks are us" threads but not for the practically minded.

As for Lieca users from Flickr, Alex Muir who describes himself as a Lieca fan.


3 favs.... seriously. Every system has it's champions, the question is, does that mean anything practically. Sometimes as above, it's not about the photographic value.

[AggieDad]

5403749[/B]] What I think strange is that Leica has camera's build in China, so no proud "Made in Germany" on the camera. Instead of on the back of the camera the country of manufacturing is now on the bottom side.

This from the Leica website: “…

“I actually have tested the SL with other cameras, and to me there was no comparison, the quality is unparalleled. The really great German manufacturing…” - Steve McCurry

5403749[/B]]
I always had the feeling that Pentax should wear the sign "Made in Japan". (They still make the front caps there.) The first time I got a Pentax in my hands that stated on the bottom "Made in the Philippines" I called Pentax in the Netherlands to inquire if I had possibly got a counterfeit camera in my hands.
Made in China still rings that bell that I have to do with a product of inferior quality. I rather see Made in Korea (on the first fabulous Samsung NX camera's and lenses to mention one) than Made in China. And to be honest Pentax in my eyes is not Pentax anymore. But I must admit the camera's are fabulous, especially the KP is a gem. But when I see that a product is made in a low wages country I always have the feeling that there is something wrong.

How times change! When I was a boy, post-war Japan was the “low wage” country, and produced a lot of low cost items. My father wouldn’t buy anything from Japan because he was sure it would be junk. I can remember things stamped, “Made in Occupied Japan.” As their manufacturing strengthen and they began to focus on quality the low cost manufacturing moved to South Korea. Over time that has changed (who laughs at Hyundai today?) and the low cost manufacturing moved on again. And it will again.

[normhead]

“I actually have tested the SL with other cameras, and to me there was no comparison, the quality is unparalleled. The really great German manufacturing…” - Steve McCurry

What does that even mean?
It sounds suspiciously like paid marketing hype.

What other camera companies?
He doesn't mention IQ.
He expresses a highly suspect tribute to German manufacturing, which sounds like old style branding.
And he makes no case for Lieca beyond "the quality is unparralled." without reference to what type of quality he's talking about.

It's just sad that he makes no reference to the fact that cameras take pictures. He doesn't even mention images.

This sounds like paid marketing speak.
It reminds of the National Enquirer "10 scientists agree" stories, there the 10 scientists are 10 guys paid for the use of their names and reputation, but don't actually contribute anything to the article. They got paid for permission to say "we agree" carte balance, regardless of the nonsense printed.

Seriously dudes. Help me out here. What's the attraction with Leica?

[boriscleto]

How could I have forgotten that I owned 2 Panasonic super zooms with “Leica” lenses? The 5MP CCD FZ5 produced nice sharps, punchy JPEGs up to ISO 400, the later FZ8 had noise issues over ISO 200. And the RAW files from the FZ8 wouldn’t work with iPhoto on a Mac…

[c.a.m]

“I actually have tested the SL with other cameras, and to me there was no comparison, the quality is unparalleled. The really great German manufacturing…” - Steve McCurry

I don't mean to criticize Leica. The brand seems to have an enduring reputation for high-quality cameras and lenses from a construction and image-quality perspective. But apart from the cachet of Leica, what do you get for the price that would justify the economic perspective of the brand? Certainly, the cameras and lenses are relatively expensive, but the brand lives on and enjoys a dedicated following. Fair enough.

I have only one personal data point: a friend shoots with a Leica M9 and really enjoys it. He doesn't flaunt it.

The "unparalleled" quality seems to have been diminished by various issues. There's the infamous M9 sensor oxidation failure (my friend's sensor was replaced for CAD $2,000 after the end of the free repair period); sensor issues with the Leica SL and M 240; and reports of premature shutter failures in the Monochrom and M8. I've seen reports of lenses that required 'tightening up'. I don't know how pervasive these issues have been, but the brand is not free from defects. The Leica repair service seems to be generally satisfactory, but there are reports of poor service, wrestling with the warranty provisions, and a need to refer the failed equipment back to Leica in Germany.

Personally, I was surprised by the $2,000 repair cost. But, on the other hand, that was roughly 25% of the camera's original price, so I guess it's a reasonable price, relatively speaking.

As for lenses, I don't have a sense for whether 'the Leica look' is real or imaginary.


- Craig

[AggieDad]

What does that even mean?
It sounds suspiciously like paid marketing hype.

What other camera companies?
He doesn't mention IQ.
He expresses a highly suspect tribute to German manufacturing, which sounds like old style branding.
And he makes no case for Lieca beyond "the quality is unparralled." without reference to what type of quality he's talking about.

It's just sad that he makes no reference to the fact that cameras take pictures. He doesn't even mention images.

This sounds like paid marketing speak.
It reminds of the National Enquirer "10 scientists agree" stories, there the 10 scientists are 10 guys paid for the use of their names and reputation, but don't actually contribute anything to the article. They got paid for permission to say "we agree" carte balance, regardless of the nonsense printed.

Seriously dudes. Help me out here. What's the attraction with Leica?

Of course it is marketing hype. The point was he mentioned the “great German manufacturing “ when others have said it is no longer made in Germany.

I wonder which is correct - made in Germany or not?

[normhead]

Of course it is marketing hype. The point was he mentioned the “great German manufacturing “ when others have said it is no longer made in Germany.

I wonder which is correct - made in Germany or not?

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Good question.
Although I would still question the value of marketing hype being accurate, about anything. There are no laws defining the necessity of truth in advertising.

In advertising, if brand A oat meal adds .1 mg of any nutritious element as supplement, they can advertise as "More nutritious than brand B." Even though they are 99.95% the same. Marketing is all about how to make minuscule differences sound important.

If a few of the components are still manufactured in Germany then the marketers will proclaim it's product benefits from "German manufacturing." Where the product is assembled or where the majority of the components are manufactured would be irrelevant from a marketing perspective.

[StiffLegged]

If you'd like to put up a couple of comparative images to show it's special I'm sure we'd all be interested. Many of us will always remain sceptical of the value of lenses we don't own, simply because we can't test for ourselves.

No, Norm, I'm not playing that joyless game. My point is some will dismiss a brand without cause, merely for sour grapes: it happens to every manufacturer and it's tedious to read. I'm sure you've come across people who can't believe 40 year old Pentax glass can be any good, or the latest D FA* 50mm for that matter, because it's Pentax. Phooey.

I've come across images made by Leica users which were quite lovely, but if you wish to remain sceptical that's your choice. I prefer to enjoy the images, whatever they were made with.

You Tube

You Tube

[normhead]

Quite lovely is a given, every camera brand has that. Better than everything else, or "worth the money" need to be defined.

[PenPusher]

I think one of the design advantages of the Leica M system is the clean look, very few buttons and a pretty sleek body there being no mirror housings to disrupt the timeless look, remember how many people liked the Olympus Pen F for its retro styling.

An SLR or DSLR is always a fairly nobly design with protrusions for mirror housing, grips plus many buttons, granted it is, in my view, a more efficient instrument covering a multitude of focal lengths whereas I think the Leica M is more suited to reportage and street photography as I feel it really is limited to wide angle and standard lens work plus the 90mm focal length for short tele work, the 135mm needs really careful focusing unless you use the old Visoflex reflex mirror housing for the M3 etc, which at least one author writing on the Leica M System admitted he always did.

I suppose it all comes back to the best camera and lens is the one in your hand.