• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Steve McCurry's promo video of Leica SL2

Ron Texas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
6,192
Likes
9,291
What about alcoholic beverages? What's the difference between Two-Buck Chuck and Château-ci-de-ça? Honest question. I don't drink so I wouldn't know.

With Vodka the difference is mostly advertising. I've had my share of 2 buck Chuck. It's mostly $3 these days. Even at $7 I can tell the difference. I will admit, after $15 the improvements are hard to find.

Really, the most significant thing about McCurry is he is endorsing Leica after a career using Nikon cameras.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,452
Likes
15,798
Location
Oxfordshire
Some serious website are evaluating flare.
It's very difficult to objectively measure it though.

Some other specialize on sharpness or, rather, MTF, which is way easier, but still subject to serious controversy.

Most are using target measurement method (dxo, Imatest are the most widely spread tools) but this is pretty limiting, especially with wide angle, due to target size limitation: you're limited to a distance of around 50x the final length, which is not representative of normal use for a wide angle lens. Lensrentals is the only one I know to measure on optical bench at infinity with at least 10 samples.

As you may see in the link I attached above, they also try to subjectively evaluate other interesting topics, like field curvature (a key topic for short, high luminosity lenses) or bokeh quality...
Yes, lens rentals are the best source I have found too for practical advice, particularly since they test multiple samples which shows how big the variance is. I enjoy the strip downs too.
I used to follow these things more closely, I did try to find the tests done showing how (probably impossibly) accurate lens registers needed to be to achieve the potential of the best lenses which I was sure I bookmarked, probably 10+ years ago, but couldn't quickly find it.
I have mainly used Leica since I could afford one. My used M6 went on for years. The lenses are not as expensive to own as it seems since most don't depreciate much and some appreciate a lot, so as long as the initial investment isn't too crippling they are a good buy. The digital cameras are very expensive if you update to the new model each time...
I used Canon SLRs from their debut autofocus EOS (I got a 620) I was never happy with their wide angles but the teles are superb.
I downsized to micro4/3 a few years ago, I had stopped taking my 600mm f4 because of the size and weight whereas the Olympus equivalent (in magnification and speed if not shortness of DoF) goes everywhere with me.
I also have a Fuji X-Pro2 as an in-between.
Now I am retired I don't get around as much as I did so don't take as many photographs. 40 years ago I was the only person taking family pictures, nowadays everybody takes gazillions of pictures on their phones!
 

anmpr1

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Messages
3,739
Likes
6,448
I'm sure the beauty industry is worse, they probably put literal snake oil into some products.
Yes, but if you time it right, you can get a small bag with some liquid goo and x-tra face color thrown in with your purchase. My wife refuses to buy fragrance unless she can get freebies thrown in.

Back in the day, before Noel Lee and Ray Kimber figured out you could sell high priced wire (special ordered from one of the major wire makers) to unsuspecting audiophiles, dealers used to throw in fifteen or twenty feet of hook up wire with a purchase. If you bought a turntable they'd probably give you a cartridge (Shure, Pickering, ADC, etc) at dealer cost. I don't know if audio stores do that, anymore.
 
OP
mi-fu

mi-fu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 7, 2018
Messages
584
Likes
661
Location
New York
Is that because they are supposed to be 'magic' (some sort of undefined top tier quality) or because they are 'collectible'? Some vintage audio gear has a high price because of the collectable aspect. Old McIntosh amps, early Marantz stuff, and a few others. I don't think anyone thinks they are exceptional from a modern electrical standpoint, but they command high prices because of what they are, and what they represent.

I think both are the reasons. Many people in that market are chasing after what they call the perfect "bokeh" - out of focus rendition, as well as tonality and smoothness, etc (you can imagine all the magical terms :p). They are some hard-to-define qualities and in many ways are unintentional defects because of the engineering limitations in the past (the best example is Dallmeyer super six). Nonetheless, I won't deny that there are some magical artistic qualities of those lenses which are often absent in modern perfectly-designed lenses.

But of course there is a strong aspect of speculation / investment value. Many people are willing to spend so much money on those lenses exactly because their prices don't really fall. Like @Frank Dernie said, Leica lenses may look expensive, but actually they really keep good values. If there is some luck, one can even make a good small fortune from them. Why it happened is an interesting story. Surely it is the result of the Japanese economic boom in the 1980s - as the term "bokeh" suggests, and more recently the Chinese economic boom. After all, these small little gems with potentially super high values have an important economic function: They are great for smuggling! :D
 

LTig

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 27, 2019
Messages
5,814
Likes
9,531
Location
Europe
I think both are the reasons. Many people in that market are chasing after what they call the perfect "bokeh" - out of focus rendition, as well as tonality and smoothness, etc (you can imagine all the magical terms :p). They are some hard-to-define qualities and in many ways are unintentional defects because of the engineering limitations in the past (the best example is Dallmeyer super six). Nonetheless, I won't deny that there are some magical artistic qualities of those lenses which are often absent in modern perfectly-designed lenses.
I own a Nikkor 1.2/50 mm AI lense we'd bought used some 30 years ago. When I got the D800 I made a few test pictures and got this answer: "I need 1/2 an hour of post processing in photoshop to get the same result as you get just out of cam." :cool:
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,752
Likes
4,642
Location
Liège, Belgium
Many people in that market are chasing after what they call the perfect "bokeh" - out of focus rendition, as well as tonality and smoothness, etc (you can imagine all the magical terms :p).
It's linked to some pretty measurable characteristics. The tricky thing is that it's not something you can characterize with just a simple measurement. Even for a given lens, it may vary with focus distance, background position, angle from center of the frame...
It's not something you can describe in any way with a single figure.
 

NTomokawa

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
779
Likes
1,334
Location
Canada
Nikkor 1.2/50 mm AI
I have a pre-AI 55mm 1:1.2 Nikkor that I modified by hacking off a portion of its aperture ring.

Let's just say that I see the softness wide-open even on film.

Very interesting effect, however.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,452
Likes
15,798
Location
Oxfordshire
It's linked to some pretty measurable characteristics. The tricky thing is that it's not something you can characterize with just a simple measurement. Even for a given lens, it may vary with focus distance, background position, angle from center of the frame...
It's not something you can describe in any way with a single figure.
Exactly, and the nature of the background and its contrast has a huge influence.
I have sold lenses I didn't like the boke of without any way of knowing before I bought it that I wouldn't.
I have read the super sharp modern lenses have poor boke but that is certainly not universally true either IME.
I have been fascinated by lenses for nearly 60 years now, and have used rather a lot now, probably hundreds and still have never seen a measurement tied in with boke.
The Canon "Lens Works" books are fascinating (if you like that sort of thing, I am far more into the technical side of photography than hifi where I mainly just listen) point out that a lens where the saggital and meridional MTF measurements are the same with image height. This agrees with my experience on the lenses where the data is published. Canon's published data is theoretical not measured though. It means almost no zooms have nice boke...
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,452
Likes
15,798
Location
Oxfordshire
Nowadays, they do pretty well. I own a few recent Canon UWA zooms and they are great, actually (and measure as such).
Thank goodness!
Even the primes were so much worse than Leica it actually made me laugh out loud to compare the results! The 16-35 f2.8 which I bought since so many pros were using it at Grands Prix was genuinely poor, I suppose they had to use it since they were tied to Canon and it was versatile. The 35mm f1.4 I had wasn't that bad but still ended up only doing WA stuff with Leica, the difference was HUGE.
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,752
Likes
4,642
Location
Liège, Belgium
Thank goodness!
Even the primes were so much worse than Leica it actually made me laugh out loud to compare the results! The 16-35 f2.8 which I bought since so many pros were using it at Grands Prix was genuinely poor, I suppose they had to use it since they were tied to Canon and it was versatile. The 35mm f1.4 I had wasn't that bad but still ended up only doing WA stuff with Leica, the difference was HUGE.
I had first version of 16-35 2.8 and corners were all soft until f/11 (and still).
It was designed mainly with APS-H in mind (x1.3).
Nowadays, version III is awesome.
So is the f/4.0L IS. And the 11-24 is just an incredible piece of glass! I love it.
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,452
Likes
15,798
Location
Oxfordshire
I had first version of 16-35 2.8 and corners were all soft until f/11 (and still).
It was designed mainly with APS-H in mind (x1.3).
Nowadays, version III is awesome.
So is the f/4.0L IS. And the 11-24 is just an incredible piece of glass! I love it.
Surprised. Never heard that it was designed for the 1.3 sensor before!
With digital and landscapes I tend to build panoramas in Photoshhop rather than us ultra wide angle lenses (though I have several.
I am a bit old fashioned and still have a bias against zoom or big lenses.
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,752
Likes
4,642
Location
Liège, Belgium
Surprised. Never heard that it was designed for the 1.3 sensor before!
With digital and landscapes I tend to build panoramas in Photoshhop rather than us ultra wide angle lenses (though I have several.
I am a bit old fashioned and still have a bias against zoom or big lenses.
Canon pro sport camera (1D2, 1D3, 1D4) were all APS-H (until 1DX)
I guess that was the main target for a news-oriented fast UWA zoom.
And, well, to be honest, for that kind of use, A4 size print is the maximum, so corner quality is of secondary importance.
Though, being in front and wide enough to get the context, is obviously key.
 
Last edited:

JJB70

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
2,905
Likes
6,151
Location
Singapore
I have always fancied a Leica 35mm rangefinder, not for photographic reasons but because I find something beautiful about the precision and quality. Years ago I used a Contax RTS3 and the accompanying Zeiss lens system, they were completely wasted on me but I still rate it as the most superbly engineered and built thing I have ever owned.
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,752
Likes
4,642
Location
Liège, Belgium
Surprised. Never heard that it was designed for the 1.3 sensor before!
With digital and landscapes I tend to build panoramas in Photoshhop rather than us ultra wide angle lenses (though I have several.
I am a bit old fashioned and still have a bias against zoom or big lenses.
I do panorama too.
More fun at 11mm, obviously :)
FB_IMG_1516041749815.jpg

Sometimes, you don't have a chance for a pano either...
FB_IMG_1516041705150.jpg
 
Top Bottom