Do you think Leica lenses outperform the top end lenses from Nikon/Canon?
- Thread starter ckiang
- Start date
- Status
B
BenJR
Guest
Hi jed
No wanting to be taken for a fool, unable to substantiate my claims that Nikon was slower than Canon and Minolta, I searched the web and came up with these.
Do keep in mind I am a Nikon user from the begining uptil now. I just do not want to be put down without stating factually my basis for claming my points earlier.
As for the infamous blue pieces canvas thingy..hey its an open market. If someone's picture of an out-of-focus person can fetch US$5000 then its his gain, no one is forcing the buyer to let that cash out of his wallet.
Ben.
Let me quote the following first.
". If you compare the bokeh in wide open shots from a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 50/1.4 Summilux, you will see what I mean. There is a very visible difference. FWIW, I have found the bokeh I prefer mostly in German lenses, but also in Minolta lenses. I now use Minolta for my AF slr system and I couldn't be happier. I can mix Minolta images with those taken with Leica lenses and there is no obvious clash of image character. "
"Some Japanese manufacturer, I guess, started to say in mid 80s that a beautiful bokeh, a qualty of out-of-focus image, is very important as well as a sharp in-focus object in photography. The first runner was Minolta. This is why we use Japanese word for such a concept, I suppose. " Yoshihiko Takinami
Osaka, Japan
yoshihiko@takinami.com
"Leica, Zeiss, Canon and Minolta generally design for this though some Nikkors like the 85mm/1.4 AF-D are designed for better background definition, and the DC lenses allow the photographer to manipulate the defocus blur characteristics. "Roland Vink roland.vink@ait.ac.nz
"Nikon doesn't seem to know it exists, or care about it. Their lenses
appear to be hit-and-miss. They recently released two lenses with
"defocus control", the 105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2, which supposedly allows
you to alter the quality of the OOF parts of the image. I haven't used
them. Their 85mm f/1.4 reportedly has nice bokeh, what I've seen of the
60mm macro looks pretty good, but general consensus has it that the 105mm
f/2.5 is the best they've ever produced with regard to bokeh. Superb
portrait lens. Wish I could get it in Leica R mount. "Martin Howard howard.390@osu.edu
And as for "But for now, the differences are subtle, more "poetic", something which , like wine-tasting, only the few can discern"
I did not mean it nor intended that to sound snobbish/elitist or arrogant. But its a fact that taste is acquired. A respectable MOVIE CRITIC has to go through the requisite academic studies, which requires him to watch many many films and dissect them and then come up with essays on things which most of us would only comment in a few lines such as "not bad/Great/boring".
I quote below someone who shares my opinion on the subtle differences between the lens makers.
"It's like a lot of the experiments run by audiophiles (the folks with
$10,000 stereo systems). Sure, you can prove that there's a difference noticeable by a trained listener. But you can't "prove" that the difference is an actual improvement in the listening experience.But I did see an example which illustrated the "parallel line" problem very well with overhead wires in a landscape. They definitely looked less annoying in the "good bokeh" picture. If I come across the URL again, I'll forward it.I know I'm going to regret writing this, because it gives the bokeh snobs language equivalent to a wine snob. Ah, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 has a fine bokeh, round, full in the center, with a melting soft edge and a wonderful aftertaste of cherries and leather.
Ciao!
Joe wiz@netfrog.net
All of which can be found in here :
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/bokeh.html
No wanting to be taken for a fool, unable to substantiate my claims that Nikon was slower than Canon and Minolta, I searched the web and came up with these.
Do keep in mind I am a Nikon user from the begining uptil now. I just do not want to be put down without stating factually my basis for claming my points earlier.
As for the infamous blue pieces canvas thingy..hey its an open market. If someone's picture of an out-of-focus person can fetch US$5000 then its his gain, no one is forcing the buyer to let that cash out of his wallet.
Ben.
Let me quote the following first.
". If you compare the bokeh in wide open shots from a 50/1.4 Nikkor and a 50/1.4 Summilux, you will see what I mean. There is a very visible difference. FWIW, I have found the bokeh I prefer mostly in German lenses, but also in Minolta lenses. I now use Minolta for my AF slr system and I couldn't be happier. I can mix Minolta images with those taken with Leica lenses and there is no obvious clash of image character. "
"Some Japanese manufacturer, I guess, started to say in mid 80s that a beautiful bokeh, a qualty of out-of-focus image, is very important as well as a sharp in-focus object in photography. The first runner was Minolta. This is why we use Japanese word for such a concept, I suppose. " Yoshihiko Takinami
Osaka, Japan
yoshihiko@takinami.com
"Leica, Zeiss, Canon and Minolta generally design for this though some Nikkors like the 85mm/1.4 AF-D are designed for better background definition, and the DC lenses allow the photographer to manipulate the defocus blur characteristics. "Roland Vink roland.vink@ait.ac.nz
"Nikon doesn't seem to know it exists, or care about it. Their lenses
appear to be hit-and-miss. They recently released two lenses with
"defocus control", the 105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2, which supposedly allows
you to alter the quality of the OOF parts of the image. I haven't used
them. Their 85mm f/1.4 reportedly has nice bokeh, what I've seen of the
60mm macro looks pretty good, but general consensus has it that the 105mm
f/2.5 is the best they've ever produced with regard to bokeh. Superb
portrait lens. Wish I could get it in Leica R mount. "Martin Howard howard.390@osu.edu
And as for "But for now, the differences are subtle, more "poetic", something which , like wine-tasting, only the few can discern"
I did not mean it nor intended that to sound snobbish/elitist or arrogant. But its a fact that taste is acquired. A respectable MOVIE CRITIC has to go through the requisite academic studies, which requires him to watch many many films and dissect them and then come up with essays on things which most of us would only comment in a few lines such as "not bad/Great/boring".
I quote below someone who shares my opinion on the subtle differences between the lens makers.
"It's like a lot of the experiments run by audiophiles (the folks with
$10,000 stereo systems). Sure, you can prove that there's a difference noticeable by a trained listener. But you can't "prove" that the difference is an actual improvement in the listening experience.But I did see an example which illustrated the "parallel line" problem very well with overhead wires in a landscape. They definitely looked less annoying in the "good bokeh" picture. If I come across the URL again, I'll forward it.I know I'm going to regret writing this, because it gives the bokeh snobs language equivalent to a wine snob. Ah, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 has a fine bokeh, round, full in the center, with a melting soft edge and a wonderful aftertaste of cherries and leather.
Ciao!
Joe wiz@netfrog.net
All of which can be found in here :
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/bokeh.html
Ben, don't u know how to take your own advice? Or was that just stalling while you went to do your research to back up your case? As I said before, you were one of the first to dive in in the first place. No further questions.
You know guys, if you want to obesses over bokeh, it's all up to you. After all, I realised one thing. People tend to concentrate more on in focus elements than out of focus backgrounds. Ever had a friend or relative comment: "WOW! SUCH LOVELY OUT OF FOCUS BACKGROUNDS!! BLENDS SUCH SMOOTHLY AND CREAMILY INTO EACH OTHER!"
No right?
No right?
What? Ducks?
:bsmilie:
But seriously, Edmund is more:
WOW
What nice photos you have!! You must have a lens with very good bokeh!!! (Sorry Edmund... now I really duck)
B
BenJR
Guest
Hi jed
My first contribution was my own opinions. However you seemed to challenge my opinions, which I cannot understand why?
The topic was is there any difference between the lenses, and I stated my opinions. I NEVER CHALLENGED ANYONE ELSES! And then you had to bring up my arguments and try to discredit them. Therefore again on last nights post I am substantiating my claims with opinions that others share with me too.
With this post please stop quoting and bringing up my opinions again. You are entitled to inform the public of your opinions but please do not try to shoot other people down with your own.
Anyway Jed, I am not stalling, I bring my camera everyday and take pictures when I see something interesting. I practice what I preach.
Good bye!:angry:
This is a free forum, your are entitled to voice your own opinions, and similarly, your opinions are entitled to be debated on. After all, what you state was just an opinion, not a fact or a truth, no?
I think you're being sensitive here. I doubt he's trying to discredit you, but offering a counter argument to what you post.
Here in ClubSNAP, we have many different types of photographers, each with his own style of photography, and therefore his own idea of what he considers "the truth". As a result, our views may not necessary agree, but that is no reason to believe that someone is out to discredit you.
Sometimes it does seem a bit frustrating that the other bugger is constantly rebutting you, but take in mind that he has his own set of experiences that have contributed to reinforcing that opinion. If you disgree, why not post up your OWN set of experiences to share? From there on, you can let the reader decide on the issue himself. No need to go all out forcefully make someone agree with you.
Like I said before, this is a free forum. I don't see any problem with anyone offering their own counterpoints to your opinion as long as it doesn't get out of hand. So let us all take a deep breath, think straight, and not let things get out of hand?
*offers a lollipop to Jed and Ben*
......Originally posted by Jed
:bsmilie:
But seriously, Edmund is more:
WOW
(Sorry Edmund... now I really duck)
ok.. you had your fun.. now hand over the 400 f/4 DO IS USM and I'll forgive you like Richard said...
You guys are so funny:bsmilie:. Making so many noise just because of the difference between Leica, Carl Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and etc. Having the best lens doesn't make you the best photographer wat, its the skills that counts. If you people really want to know the difference, go buy a second hand Leica or Contax body with some lens and try it out lah. The cheapest second hand contax 167MT body in mint condition which I've seen was around S$500+ and maybe I could lend you my spare carl zeiss tessar 45mm F2.8 len to try out but not my camera.
.
K
Kiwi
Guest
Originally posted by Xpose
You guys are so funny:bsmilie:. Making so many noise just because of the difference between Leica, Carl Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and etc. Having the best lens doesn't make you the best photographer wat, its the skills that counts. If you people really want to know the difference, go buy a second hand Leica or Contax body with some lens and try it out lah. The cheapest second hand contax 167MT body in mint condition which I've seen was around S$500+ and maybe I could lend you my spare carl zeiss tessar 45mm F2.8 len to try out but not my camera
Totally agree. Sigh... Why start this post and why are we still at this overkilled topic again??? From the magazines I've read and photo seminars I've attended, pros use all sorts of cameras: Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc. They are all good cameras. But the final clinching point is the art that the photographer creates thru his skills. When u look at many good pictures or images, can u tell exactly from which camera it came from or even which slide film was used? I've seen beautiful ones taken with all the major brands, German or Jap.
Why don't we spend more time appreciating good pictures instead of debating sharpness among different brands. It's more logical and fruitful to question "should I use digital, 35mm or MF" IMHO.
LOL sometimes I wanna shout at the cutomers who tell me the Lumix leica lenses are better.... "YEAH AT A SUPER SHARP *TWO* MEGAPIXELS!" at most like ED glass only... Leic Leihomar and LeiLomo lenses... chuwahonne!
well...if u r unable to see any diff b/w leica and nikon/canon then dont buy leica coz its hell too expensive even to the rich.
and if u can tell any difference then...its up to u to spend your own money.
or if u r rich enough to afford anything then...its also up to u to spend your own money
ie
it up to your own taste, man.
and if u can tell any difference then...its up to u to spend your own money.
or if u r rich enough to afford anything then...its also up to u to spend your own money
ie
it up to your own taste, man.
- Status
