Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I seem to recall some rhetoric about David Douglas Duncan and Horace Bristol and some "funny" cheap little lenses from Tokyo..... Actually folks, as I'm sure many of you have, I've owned Leica, Nikon, and Canon cameras and lenses from 1948 till 1990 or so (the cameras, not my age!!) and here's my "empirical" evaluation: In the fifties, Leica lenses were fair or poor compared to Nikon and Zeiss. In the early sixties, Leica had some first rate lenses (50 summicron, of course), but Nikon and Canon had the edge still, in the number of lenses, and their overall performance....lately, say 1980 to date, Leica has once again reclaimed the pedestal..... But bear in mind, no one else "appears" to be trying to build (mechanically AND optically "top notch" lenses....although Zeiss stuff is optically superb, Leica wins hands-down mechanically... and the Nikons and Canons are mechanical nightmares.... Erwin has an excellent article on his site---he notes that Leica users have the attitude that newer bodies are not the equal of the M3 and M4.....and asks for "Proof" that the newer bodies are of lesser quality....well, after replacing plastic sync blocks in two M4-Ps, and seeing half the RFs on later cameras needing adjustment out of the box, and replacing one counter, and noticing that my M4-P had more play in the wind lever bushings -- NEW --- than my old 1970 M4, I STILL won't argue with Erwin...I don't HAVE or NEED measurements to confirm the above........... However, no one else has equalled the mechanical excellence of Leica, EVEN WITH THE ABOVE PROBLEMS!!!......and of course recently, the lenses have truly been the best in the world....but it tweren't ALWAYS SO!!!..... You want the best?....find late M2s or M3s, perhaps an M4, say from 1965 to about 1971, low mileage cameras, EXC or better, that HAVEN"T been butchered....and have them CLA'd by a quality service familiar with Leica (Sherry?...DAG?..) THEN, buy current lenses or perhaps their immediate predecessors, to stick on 'em......you WILL pay through the ass for such cameras and lenses, unless you stumble across them at a garage sale (!)...... It's >MY< >OPINION< (Please note emphasis) that this would be the ULTIMATE in 35mm RF photography.....quality wise...based on years of use of ALL of the above, and working on much of it in a shop....so my opinion is NOT a wild-assed guess.... FWIW, my "simplified" RF system is fairly representative of the above, within the limits of my budget and my ability to find the stuff.... If anyone doubts what I've written, I'll trade my EXC M4P, perhaps 100 rolls TOTAL through it, perfect RF and shutter for your EXC or better M2, same condition, from the mid sixties or so......????? What, no takers?.....now surely Erwin has a nice M2......(sorry, couldn't resist) have a great day, I'm enjoying this thread (and most of the others, too) Walt in Denton, Tx. On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Martin Howard wrote: > B. D. Colen jotted down the following: > > > It seems to me that some of the Canon and Nikon lenses of > > that period, particularly towards the end of that period, were certainly as > > good as, if not better than, a lot of the Leica lenses of the same > > period > > Which, I assume, is a contributing factor to why Nikon became so popular > with photojournalists around that era. > > M. > > -- > Martin Howard | "Why don't they make gravestones > Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | cheerier?" > email: howard.390@osu.edu | -- Nigel Tufnel > www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +--------------------------------------- > > >