Why the quality of a Leica lens is better

[Antonio Correia]

Why the quality of a Leica lens is better than the most of others ?

How can I recognize - if that is possible - an image made with a Leica and one made with a Panasonic non Leica ?

Here one with a Leica Summilux and another with an Olympus. Same place, same light, same minutes separate the photos... different settings and adjustments.

Which is which ? Want to bet ?
I wish I could tell without knowing the answer.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Antonio,

I believe the Leica is on the right. The picture on the left appears to have chromatic aberration on the edge of the white vertical surface. That would not likely occur with a genuine Leica -made Summilux.

But this is an unfair test as the focal lengths of the lenses give different depth of focus and look. Still, my gut goes with the Leica on the right.

Asher

 

[Antonio Correia]

Antonio,
I believe the Leica is on the right. The picture on the left appears to have chromatic aberration on the edge of the white vertical surface. That would not likely occur with a genuine Leica -made Summilux.
But this is an unfair test as the focal lengths of the lenses give different depth of focus and look. Still, my gut goes with the Leica on the right. Asher

Let's wait a few more hours to see if others give a hunch.
Thank you.

 

[fahim mohammed]

To answer one part of your question....Leica lenses are made in Germany. They are made with experience of over 100 years of optic design and manufacture. All that is known of optical lens design goes into the production of a leica lens. The QC is very stringent for each lens. Mechanical tolerances
For range-finder lenses made by Leica are very finely controlled and tuned.

Then is the uncomprosing quality in a small size. The materials used. The floating elements. The exotic glass. The fine tuning of the mechanical parts. Plastic is used only for the lens cap in a summilux lens.

The Pana-Leica 25mm is an optical design of Leica, but made by Pana. It is made of plastic.

One more thing to add, do not underestimate the value of the red dot!

These are some of the reasons , a Leica M Summilux 50mm asph costs around US$ 3000.00, while the
Pana-Leica 25mm summilux ( leica calls lenses with an aperture of f/1.4 summilux ), costs around US$ 800.00

Now to your images. I see them as above/under and not right/left as mentioned by Asher.

The quality of a lens ( any lens ) can only be ascertained ( and even then with some doubt ) from a well
Executed print. Web sized images are really not the medium for judging lens quality.
Additionally, this is an unfair test since the fl is different as are the apertures used. As is the ss and the ISO ( not significant ).

If you have used the Olympus 75/1.8, know that it is one of the best lenses made by anyone. It is a neutral rendering lens. The Pana-Leica is known to have CA from f/2.8 onwards, while at wider apertures the CA is generall not noticeable.

I would say that the top image was made with the Pana-Leica 25mm.

Just my feeling.

 

[Antonio Correia]

Thank you Hahim for your opinion.
However, I have been reading that Zeiss has a partnership with Panasonic for some time now and they are made in Japan under "surveillance" of Leica.
Well, that is not really important. Or else, it is so important as it is that many objects we use of extreme good quality are made in China. They make good, less good and really bad stuff.
I am aware that Leica is for sure a great lens produces with solid reputation. But they are too expensive, for me that is.
I have used the Oly 75mm 1.8 and found it very pleasant with excellent results. And... it is nice ! No IS however...
Let's wait a bit for more opinions about the test of the year !

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

To answer one part of your question....Leica lenses are made in Germany.

Even the Leica DC Vario-Elmarit f/1.2-2.8 5-108 mm asph on my Panasonic DMC-FZ200? Ach du lieber!

One more thing to add, do not underestimate the value of the red dot!

Oh, I know. I can get my DMC-FZ200 with a red dot (same machine, same lens, some tiny firmware differences) for another $400.

I'm really just pulling your leg. But these things are often more - complicated - than they might seem.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Antonio Correia]

Please Doug... bet on one of the photographs, will you ?!...

Thank you for the fantastic tip DMC-FZ200

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Antonio,

Please Doug... bet on one of the photographs, will you ?!...

I guess that the second one was taken with the actual Leica lens.

Thank you for the fantastic tip DMC-FZ200

It is a very nice machine.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Antonio Correia]

The correct answer is as follow.
Thank you for the time spent. I think I am going to get a Leica lens soon...
There is something creamy on the image - you can't see it or rather, it is very difficult to see on the web - which pleases me very much.
I really think that the gap between top and expensive lens and high level ones is narrow.
As far as I remember, the Oly has a better look and feel than the Leica. Oly lenses are - some - very nice, those in silver. Good design. Attractive. No IS however...

 

[fahim mohammed]

Antonio, do I win a prize for guessing
Correctly

Making excellent lenses is not that difficult nowadays.

Making superlative lenses is expensive.

As any engineer will tell you, the extra
5 to 3% to go from excellent to superb is what
One pays for. Same with lenses.

A summilux slap on badge, don't make it the
Real thing. As is obvious in the 25mm CA at the
High contrast edges.

Best.
p.s. eg look at the white sheet near corner end.

 

[fahim mohammed]

Hi Doug.

.05$ for the red dot. 399.95$ for what
It signifies.

Take care.

 

[Robert Watcher]

I came in late - but you made it easy by posting the focal lengths. Lumix 25mm and Olympus 75mm. I never even got to the point of comparing images.

I have always loved Olympus lenses going back to my first purchase of an OM-2s Program body with 65-200mm f/4.0 MACRO, 300mm f4 and 21mm f3.5 Zuiko lenses, back in the 80's - - - even if I can't see a visual difference from one lens brand to another, and don't really care even if there is a difference. LOL

I personally have never had an interest in the 25mm or 50mm equiv focal length, but would love to one day own the Olympus 75mm. Of course my 75mm f1.8 would have Image Stabilization with my Oly bodies.

 

[Antonio Correia]

Thank you Fahim and thank you Robert.


You are right Robert about the clue I was giving about the focal range of the lenses.
I was able to see that yesterday.

In presence of both images I can glimpse a small difference. Not a great one but I can see it. Or at least, I think I can see a difference

As far as I can remember the Leica was not very attractive. The design was poor and the feeling of the lens when handled was not as good as the Oly 75mm which was grey !

Both are great lenses indeed.

The Pan GX7 has the 20mm f/1.7
Now I am seriously planning to dive onto two lenses:
the Panasonic Lumix G Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH lens and
the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH lens

I am not sure yet If I will have the courage to spend so much money.
At least for now I am choosing the wide angle.
Perhaps the other later on.
I want to move into something better and lighter than Canon and a definitive option for primes.

Panasonic Lumix G Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH Lens

Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH​

 

[Robert Watcher]

Yeah that Nocticron 85mm equiv f1.2 lens would be pretty great to have and right in my sweet spot for most used focal length ---- but probably a little too rich for my blood. Especially with the Oly 45 f1.8 being such a wonderful lens at a decent price.

So the logic for me is small 116 grams at $400 , or big 425 grams at $1500. Both wonderful lenses, so extra size and cost for basically a tad more depth of field - but only matters if I shoot wide open all the time. Right now I'm using a FREE 50mm f1.7 Minolta lens as my fixed portrait length lens. Yes it is a pain being manual focus only, but it works. I love that the mirrorless cameras can have any lens attached to them with a cheapo adaptor.


I've never really used a 35mm equiv lens, but know of different famous photographers who made careers on that focal length for reportage and environmental portrait work. Although I guess the Oly 17mm is little closer to that than the Lumix 15mm.

Thank you Fahim and thank you Robert.


You are right Robert about the clue I was giving about the focal range of the lenses.
I was able to see that yesterday.

In presence of both images I can glimpse a small difference. Not a great one but I can see it. Or at least, I think I can see a difference

As far as I can remember the Leica was not very attractive. The design was poor and the feeling of the lens when handled was not as good as the Oly 75mm which was grey !

Both are great lenses indeed.

The Pan GX7 has the 20mm f/1.7
Now I am seriously planning to dive onto two lenses:
the Panasonic Lumix G Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH lens and
the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH lens

I am not sure yet If I will have the courage to spend so much money.
At least for now I am choosing the wide angle.
Perhaps the other later on.
I want to move into something better and lighter than Canon and a definitive option for primes.

Panasonic Lumix G Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH Lens

Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH​

 

[Antonio Correia]

The difference in figures between 35mm and 30mm is not much but perhaps this little bit can make a difference.

I am in pursuit of really - really - excellent quality images.
I like Olys because they are good and well presented but Leica version is - is it ? - a better option.
Once I had a 85mm from Nikon f/1.8 (or was it 1.4 ?) and I do remember it was superb.

I may be wrong but it is not the 20mm Oly which has not IS ?
Is it not that all Olys do not have IS in their lenses ?
In this respect Pan is better. The GX7 has IS and so does the mentioned lenses.

I am waiting for some more opinions about theses lenses. Thank you !

Oh BTW I also read about Voitgtlander 42,5 mm f/0,95, but the focusing is manual. I do not want that. I want both: manual and auto.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Fahim,

Hi Doug.

.05$ for the red dot. 399.95$ for what
It signifies.

Which in this case is, "This Panasonic camera is sold by Leica Camera AG".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[fahim mohammed]

Doug. Exactly.

Or such and such a lens is made by Tamron, Cosina etc. but carries the Zeiss label.

Or buy the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 for Nikon F mount for around 4000.00$
Made by Zeiss in their German factory in Oberkochen.

One gets what one pays for; in most instances anyway.

Take care.

Hi, Fahim,



Which in this case is, "This Panasonic camera is sold by Leica Camera AG".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Michael Nagel]

I may be wrong but it is not the 20mm Oly which has not IS ?
Is it not that all Olys do not have IS in their lenses ?
In this respect Pan is better. The GX7 has IS and so does the mentioned lenses.

Antonio,

The Olympus lenses are designed primarily for the Olympus body which has sensor-based stabilization which works quite good on the E-M5 (my experience) and as good or better on newer Olympus bodys, so I would refrain from any better/worse attribute here as both approaches have their individual advantages and drawbacks.
Optical IS is pretty much a no-go when you use the camera e.g. in an environment with a lot of vibration.

There is no better/worse, just a different approaches. Try to see the big picture before making any judgements and decisions...

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Asher Kelman]

If one is thirsty, one can rehydrate with tap water or Evian limited edition. Either way, if the body is fine, we do well!

..............for photography, we're pretty well limited today only by the opportunities we give ourselves, our position and timing.

But I'm "preaching to the choir", as you all know that!

Still, I'd love to own a Lecia MF camera. That is the beneficiary of so many legendary Leica models and a wonderful new sensor. But, like the young pretty women that go by, I can't pay for the overhead!

Asher

 

[Robert Watcher]

I kind of had those years/desires/reality checks Asher.

Granted I have never desired a Leica of any sort. I saw, handled and tried loading film into the bottom of the camera as was required - and still it did nothing for me.

Same with the notion that every real pro should use a Hasselblad in the old days. Of course I already had a beautiful Mamyia RZ67 which I used on probably 30%of my jobs - far preferring the ease and speed of my small and svelt Olympus 35mm gear.

But I did end up using Hasselblad on two occasions - after I sold my RZ67 just before going digital, I rented a kit for a weekend to shoot a few jobs - the other time was a commercial room shoot that I had for a large Retirement Home advertising piece, where I required the superfine $10,000 Hasselblad SWD with its super-wide lens. On that occasion I also rented 2 of the largest Speedotron generators and a bunch of heads, because I needed them but could never justify owning them. But you know what I really wanted to buy right. ProPhoto generators and heads cause they were in a league (and price) of their own.

Then that brings me to my studio. For 8 years during the 1990's, I owned a Main Street studio. The sales room and front window were essential - and so was enough space to build the required darkroom that I used on a daily basis.

But what I really wanted and justified, was a space wide enough, long enough, and high enough to create an ideal shooting area to handle all of my portrait work and commercial work and stock image shoots. So I got everything that I 'needed'. The shooting room was 25'x45' by 14 feet high. I really impressed people when I showed it to them.

Looking back though, I realized that that shooting space never got used more than half a dozen times a year, and those half dozen jobs could easily be shot on location like all of the others.

Of course we all can have whatever we want can't we. But we don't need and won't use anything close to what think we have to have. The marketing people in businesses are genius at making us drool over whatever they say is the best, and make us dissatified with what we have and make do with.

That is fact. The proof is in the fact that in a blind test (without influence) we can't really tell the difference of things we think are important to base judgement on - as evidenced in this post. 99% of the guys/gals wanting Leicas or exotic/expensive lenses, will be sharing their images online or printing no bigger than an 8x10 where any old camera and lens with a good dose of modern day post-processing will look the same. Also the proof is with all of the photographers with Nikon D4's and 85f1.2 glass who shoot uninspiring images. I saw the frustrated or disillusioned people on pro and semi pro photography forums every day. And then there were/are the gear proponents who listenand believe every nice comment or Facebook and Instagram follower who tell them how great their photos are.

Nothing wrong with having nice stuff of course - having that Leica because you just like blowing the money and feeling good holding it. Or maybe you feel that it does make you a better photographer. But my mindset is to just say it like it is, instead of trying to justify by comparing one to the other and then wishing you had bought something else or better, once the choice has been made. Man, big business has us (I'll include myself in that group at times) all in their back pocket don't they.

That said - I just felt like talking. It matters not to me what anyone chooses to do or how they spend their money. Cheers.



[QUOTE=Asher Kelman;159148]If one is thirsty, one can rehydrate with tap water or Evian limited edition. Either way, if the body is fine, we do well!

..............for photography, we're pretty well limited today only by the opportunities we give ourselves, our position and timing.

But I'm "preaching to the choir", as you all know that!

Still, I'd love to own a Lecia MF camera. That is the beneficiary of so many legendary Leica models and a wonderful new sensor. But, like the young pretty women that go by, I can't pay for the overhead!

Asher[/QUOTE]

 

[fahim mohammed]

Notwithstanding the self consoling and fallacious comments re: that 99% of Leica photographers only post online or don’t exceed 8x10 prints, here are a few comments about what makes Leica special..as gleaned from numerous posts..

So what makes a Leica Special?

“
- The photographer who uses one.

- What makes a Leica Special is that it attracts Special photographers.

- No other camera can create such a defined line between ‘ us and them ‘.

- No other camera can cause such hate fueled jealously by those who do not or simply cannot own one.

- No other camera can cause the photographer to expect so much. And others to expect so much from the photographer who uses a Leica.

- Canikolympsony make Leica Special.
"

And Asher, my good friend, while you and I might not be able to manage the issues that ensue from
getting entangled with a ‘ pretty woman ‘ ( inc. the overheads ); we ( you and me, Asher ) are more than able and wiling to appreciate the beauty that passes us by. Not find excuses to diminish the beauty that walks by us by frivolous and disparaging comments.

Leica never was, is not and never will be a price/performance proposition. A bracelet from a shop in Place Vendome, Paris, France, could never be a value proposition. But the craftsmanship, quality, design, and elegance it symbolizes cannot be denied.

If one cannot afford it, simply move on. It is not for you. Luckily there are many alternate choices available.

Will Leica make one a better photographer? What do you think?

As for me, personally; Oscar Wilde put it more eloquently than I ever could..

“I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”

p.s. those that want a little more about what makes Leica Special can have a good read here Leica

 

[Robert Watcher]

Sorry --- what I was implying was 'that 99% of photographers (which would include those who shoot with or desire to own a Leica) only post online (meaning small dimensions) or don't exceed 8x10 prints (which includes one of the largest print producers which are wedding photographers)'.

Even though I qualify that, it could well be that 99% of Leica photographers only use those outputs. I am not being fallacious at all --- such a concept could be presumed by the clear evidence that only a very small number of all the millions of photographers display or provide viewers with large format output or any digital output where qualities of very expensive and exotic gear could be recognized instantly.

Please --- I am not a Leica hater, the brand just doesn't appeal to me personally. A Leica kit will take excellent pictures in the hands of the right person and terrible pictures in others hands - just as would be the case of any brand. Personally, I have no lust for that brand nor any dissapointment (self consolement) from not having one.

There is one part in the rest of your reply that probably makes most sense - that for many (not all) Leica devoties, those cameras and lenses are objects of desire or lust based on beauty or craftmenship just like women or jewellry - little to do with taking better pictures. There is nothing wrong with that. To presume that people who do not share that same sense are not as refined or qualified or are jealous - is just plain silly isn't it. Listen, give me a $30,000 camera I will shoot with it - give me a $300 camera I will shoot with it. But price, beauty or craftsmanship aren't going to dictate which one I prefer for taking pictures or make use of on a daily basis right.

Back to the content of this post for a second --- can you provide anything definitive, that would allow a viewer to identify a photograph as shot by a Leica or any other brand of modern day camera and lens of a good quality without having them labeled? I'd be curious.


------------------
As for your use of the Oscar Wilde quote, maybe some context:

The author Edgar Saltus was a friend of Oscar Wilde, and in 1917 he released a short volume titled “Oscar Wilde: An Idler’s Impression” which included the following dialog between Saltus and Wilde:

Come to my shop,” I said, “and have dinner with me. Though,” I added, “I don’t know what I can give you.”
“Oh, anything,” Wilde replied. “Anything, no matter what. I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”


I am in total agreement with this way of thinking. If I have nothing or very little, what I have is the best and I can be content and satisfied. The meals that my wife gives me - even when simple - are the best. The scribbly drawings on ripped paper that are gifts from my little granddaughters, are the best. The cameras and lenses I use each day to satisfy my craving to express my vision photographically, are the best and I am satisfied. I have the simplest tastes. There's multiple ways to look at everything isn't there.

Notwithstanding the self consoling and fallacious comments re: that 99% of Leica photographers only post online or don’t exceed 8x10 prints, here are a few comments about what makes Leica special..as gleaned from numerous posts..

So what makes a Leica Special?

“
- The photographer who uses one.

- What makes a Leica Special is that it attracts Special photographers.

- No other camera can create such a defined line between ‘ us and them ‘.

- No other camera can cause such hate fueled jealously by those who do not or simply cannot own one.

- No other camera can cause the photographer to expect so much. And others to expect so much from the photographer who uses a Leica.

- Canikolympsony make Leica Special.
"

And Asher, my good friend, while you and I might not be able to manage the issues that ensue from
getting entangled with a ‘ pretty woman ‘ ( inc. the overheads ); we ( you and me, Asher ) are more than able and wiling to appreciate the beauty that passes us by. Not find excuses to diminish the beauty that walks by us by frivolous and disparaging comments.

Leica never was, is not and never will be a price/performance proposition. A bracelet from a shop in Place Vendome, Paris, France, could never be a value proposition. But the craftsmanship, quality, design, and elegance it symbolizes cannot be denied.

If one cannot afford it, simply move on. It is not for you. Luckily there are many alternate choices available.

Will Leica make one a better photographer? What do you think?

As for me, personally; Oscar Wilde put it more eloquently than I ever could..

“I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”

p.s. those that want a little more about what makes Leica Special can have a good read here Leica

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Rob,

Thank you so much for this:

The author Edgar Saltus was a friend of Oscar Wilde, and in 1917 he released a short volume titled “Oscar Wilde: An Idler’s Impression” which included the following dialog between Saltus and Wilde:

Come to my shop,” I said, “and have dinner with me. Though,” I added, “I don’t know what I can give you.”
“Oh, anything,” Wilde replied. “Anything, no matter what. I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”

That brings tears to my eyes.

I am in total agreement with this way of thinking. If I have nothing or very little, what I have is the best and I can be content and satisfied. The meals that my wife gives me - even when simple - are the best. The scribbly drawings on ripped paper that are gifts from my little granddaughters, are the best. The cameras and lenses I use each day to satisfy my craving to express my vision photographically, are the best and I am satisfied. I have the simplest tastes. There's multiple ways to look at everything isn't there.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Antonio Correia]

Antonio, The Olympus lenses are designed primarily for the Olympus body which has sensor-based stabilization which works quite good on the E-M5 (my experience) ... Best regards, Michael

Thank you Michael for your valuable contribution.
-

I like the way the thread turned to !​

-

...Of course we all can have whatever we want can't we. But we don't need and won't use anything close to what think we have to have. The marketing people in businesses are genius at making us drool over whatever they say is the best, and make us dissatisfied with what we have and make do with.
That is fact... That said - I just felt like talking. It matters not to me what anyone chooses to do or how they spend their money. Cheers.

Please Rob feel free like talking often. Well said ! Consumer society that is. No one can escape. And it is stronger everyday.
-

Back to the content of this post for a second --- can you provide anything definitive, that would allow a viewer to identify a photograph as shot by a Leica or any other brand of modern day camera and lens of a good quality without having them labeled? I'd be curious.
------------------
As for your use of the Oscar Wilde quote, maybe some context:
The author Edgar Saltus was a friend of Oscar Wilde, and in 1917 he released a short volume titled “Oscar Wilde: An Idler’s Impression” which included the following dialog between Saltus and Wilde:
Come to my shop,” I said, “and have dinner with me. Though,” I added, “I don’t know what I can give you.”
“Oh, anything,” Wilde replied. “Anything, no matter what. I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.”
I am in total agreement with this way of thinking. If I have nothing or very little, what I have is the best and I can be content and satisfied. The meals that my wife gives me - even when simple - are the best. The scribbly drawings on ripped paper that are gifts from my little granddaughters, are the best. The cameras and lenses I use each day to satisfy my craving to express my vision photographically, are the best and I am satisfied. I have the simplest tastes. There's multiple ways to look at everything isn't there.

With this thread I wanted you to separate one photo from the other in quality terms.
Robert, you said it simply and I quote again:
"can you provide anything definitive, that would allow a viewer to identify a photograph as shot by a Leica or any other brand of modern day camera and lens of a good quality without having them labeled ?"
I was asking myself if I was looking at both pictures and I couldn't see the slight difference. But was this difference - if glimpsed - a result of the lens or of my own eyes ?
-
About the quotation of Wilde. When I was today walking to have a coffee at the cafeteria, I was thinking that the context of the quote was missing as - I assume - Wilde wouldn't be - perhaps - so selfish as not to want the good for other citizens. I hope to make myself understand.
Personally I like to feel good mainly when the society around me is feeling the same way.
-
Thank you all for spending time writing these lines.
I will let you know about my decision some day in the near future. If I get Panasonic Leica lenses you will see how my photography will improve dramatically ! You will see, you wll see ! LOL

 

[fahim mohammed]

Let me answer a question quickly..that which was the OP's title and question:

" Why the quality of a Leica lens is better than the most of others ? ".

Because Leica lenses for the M and S system are designed, manufactured and quality controlled to be the best or amongst the best.

Asking to see an image made with a Leica lens that demonstrates the superiority of a Leica lens ( in most but not all cases ) for the M and S system, is a ludicrous request.

Why? Simply because an image, any image, shown would NOT show the lens quality; BUT
what an image looked like using a CAMERA/LENS combination. ( of course the photog also plays a part in such an exercise ).

Need to know what a lens quality is really like? Read the MTF charts of the lens, generated using various methodologies. And compare with other lenses of the same focal length.

I am surprised that even ' experienced ' photographers here make such a request.

After the MTF charts, and only then start checking out the subtleties of the rendered color/s, the fading of the foreground and the background and various other subjective feels the lens imparts to an image.

Later start exploring the difference between the Mandler and Karbe designs. Vintage and Modern designs etc.

More to it than just ' hey Butch show me an image on the internet that proves that the xyz lens is better than the abc lens '.

As to other issues raised in this thread, I shall pen an appropriate response shortly.

Why is a Steinway and Sons piano more expensive than a Yamaha?
Why are musical instruments made by the Stradivari family ( violins specially ) more expensive than others?

They all sound the same to me. Are they really any better? How?

p.s. Leica 50mm Summicron APO How Much and Why?

 

[Michael Nagel]

.....
And compare with other lenses of the same focal length.
.....

This pretty much nails it and is the reason why I did not answer the original question.

On the other hand - there is only one 75mm/1.8 for mFT available I am aware of, which helps to answer the question without really looking at the pictures (mFT can be deduced from the FoV compared to the focal length).

Best regards,
Michael

 

[Robert Watcher]

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or sincere Doug. LOL

Hi, Rob,

Thank you so much for this:



That brings tears to my eyes.



Thanks again.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Robert Watcher]

Naw - - - I was just in a funny mood today when I engaged in my slight rant. I would far sooner shoot than talk. Thanks so much Antonio.

I actually hope that you do buy the Panasonic Leica lenses - - - I am in love with your photography now, can't wait to see how much more you can give.

Thank you Michael for your valuable contribution.


Please Rob feel free like talking often.

-
Thank you all for spending time writing these lines.
I will let you know about my decision some day in the near future. If I get Panasonic Leica lenses you will see how my photography will improve dramatically ! You will see, you wll see ! LOL

 

[Robert Watcher]

Fahim I have no beef with you. I was just having some fun writing some words today.

As far as MTF charts or any other statistical data - - - that matters to some people and others could care less as they have nothing to do with their creative process.

I've stated it before and I will state it again. One of the most creative photographers that I have known, shot with a Minolta camera and a cheap Kiron zoom attached - on the front of the lens was a cheap UV filter that always had dust and smudges all over it. I loved looking at prints of his photos. He was a true artist - photographer and also an impressive painter with some works hanging in art galleries (unfortunately he died at a very young age)

I'm not saying that a crappy lens works for everyone - but the fact that award winning and salable images can be produced with lenses that are far less than stellar, throws the charts and technical stats out the window. It only matters to those who love numbers and statistics more than real shooting. Can you shoot good images with the best lenses or with Leica lenses? Of course you can.

I think I have said my 1,000 words for the year. LOL I love your passion Fahim.

Need to know what a lens quality is really like? Read the MTF charts of the lens, generated using various methodologies. And compare with other lenses of the same focal length.

I am surprised that even ' experienced ' photographers here make such a request.

After the MTF charts, and only then start checking out the subtleties of the rendered color/s, the fading of the foreground and the background and various other subjective feels the lens imparts to an image.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Rob,

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or sincere Doug. LOL

Wholly sincere.

Sorry you can't tell the difference!

Best regards,

Doug