Are LEICA good?

wrote:
At one time the Leica lens were the best money could buy. Then Japan
took over and Leica faded away.
Now Panasonic is advertising the use of Leica lens. I wonder what
exactly is the meaning of the Leica name and who makes the lens now?

Comparisons of the Leica lens on the Panasonic FZ5 and the Canon lens on
the S2 IS (cameras of similar age and aimed at a similar market) generally
conclude that the Leica lens produces better images (has fewer
aberrations, fringing etc.). It appears to be "a good one".

I haven't seen authoritative details published about who exactly design,
manufactures, and provides the quality control for that lens.

David

(sorry about the inadvertent direct reply!)

wrote in message
...
At one time the Leica lens were the best money could buy. Then Japan took
over and Leica faded away.
Now Panasonic is advertising the use of Leica lens. I wonder what exactly
is the meaning of the Leica name and who makes the lens now?


Ford put the Jaguar name on a glorified Ford Tarus. Enough said.

Bill Crocker

The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.

From a quality point of view there is nothing wrong with the upmarket
Leica lenses. Yes they are horribly expensive and being a talented
photographer has a far bigger effect on the end result. Extreme
precision will rarely come cheap.

Now the Leica lenses on the Panasonic cameras, that's another matter. I
can imagine Leica engineers designing the lens and then it's made
cheaply in far away. Like Schneider Kreuznach lenses in Samsung. Here
the approach is more to give a decent quality/price ratio, at an
absolute quality that's good enough for many users. I have seen digilux
2 pictures and these were ok. Not as instantly amazing like the
Summicron though (sensore will als make a difference of course).

Tom

I appreciate every every comments and learning from them.

The camera that I have in mind, at this time, is the Panasonic DMC-FZ50K.
In Canada the regular price is $799.99.
DSLR would probably be better. But to get a good zoom for bird photography
I would have to carry a 400mm telephoto lens.
This adds up to the carrying bag. This Panasonic DMC-FZ50K has a 12X
optical zoom. Along with good quality lens I may be able to do away with a
bulky telephoto? The quality may less than using a DSLR?



"Bill Crocker" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
...
At one time the Leica lens were the best money could buy. Then Japan
took over and Leica faded away.
Now Panasonic is advertising the use of Leica lens. I wonder what
exactly is the meaning of the Leica name and who makes the lens now?


Ford put the Jaguar name on a glorified Ford Tarus. Enough said.

Bill Crocker

wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

Oh by the way, could you perhaps share some of those photos with us so
that we can all be blown away by the Leica quality? Or is the Leica
superiority just an analog thing that doesn't do so well in digital
form? The reason I ask is because I've often challenged Leica users to
show me some pics that couldn't be taken with a different top notch
lens, but I never get a reply. I'm left to conclude that either the
Leica lenses aren't really better, or else that Leica users simply
don't take pictures with them. Most Leicas are worn like jewelry.
Taking pics with them would only hurt their re-sale value.

Recently, I was able to use the spectacular Canon 85mm f/1.2L. Now
THAT is a lens!
Here's a shot I took with it.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/64263482

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.

Philly wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth.

And your source of this information is?

Me. I made the statement. Prove me wrong if you can. I'll wait.
I've waited this long.....

On 18 Oct 2006 14:22:34 -0700, "Annika1980"
wrote:


wrote:
The mythical superiority of Leica is just that ... a myth

That is patently NOT true. Just a few year ago I enlarged some black
and white pictures made with a Leica camera and lens, I believe a 35mm
Summicron lens. The quality was very, very good. And I am picky about
those things, I know the quality of a micro Nikkor, I have seen prints
from Canon prime lenses and all were very good, but the Leica pictures
were even better.


Well I guess that settles THAT!

It settles it just as effectively as the fool who posted:

"Leica and Zeiss have been living off an old
reputation for a long time now. They are the Cadillac of
lenses. And like today's Cadillacs, they are overrated and
over-priced."

Or for that matter:

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.

Way to go Brett. What a ****wit.

--
John Bean

Bill Crocker wrote:
wrote in message
...
At one time the Leica lens were the best money could buy. Then
Japan took over and Leica faded away.
Now Panasonic is advertising the use of Leica lens. I wonder what
exactly is the meaning of the Leica name and who makes the lens now?


Ford put the Jaguar name on a glorified Ford Tarus. Enough said.

Not enough...
....They also put "Land Rover" on a glorified Ford Escape(!).
What a joke.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

John Bean wrote:
Well I guess that settles THAT!

It settles it just as effectively as the fool who posted:

"Leica and Zeiss have been living off an old
reputation for a long time now. They are the Cadillac of
lenses. And like today's Cadillacs, they are overrated and
over-priced."

Or for that matter:

I'd put that lens or the newly announced Canon 50mm f/1.2L up against
anything ever from Leica or Zeiss. Prove me wrong.

Way to go Brett. What a ****wit.


I note that you didn't refute my statements with some examples or some
test results, but instead just called me a fool and a ****wit. Were
you pressed for time?
BTW, it's "Bret" with one "t."

Philly wrote:

And your source of this information is?

That you Glenn?