>>>>>>>>>
Also, a friend keeps telling me that Leica rangefinder cameras produce much
sharper photographs than photos taken with Nikon lenses of similar focal
length. Does anyone have an educated opinion on this?
<<<<<<<<<
The current Leica 35 mm aspherical M lenses probably are the sharpest
lenses of that focal length available at their widest apertures (though I
write that without knowing the optical quality of Canon's new 35 f/1.4 EOS
lens). Leica M users will make the same arguement for their aspherical 21
and 24 mm M lenses. These lenses are new designs, all introduced over the
last few years, while their Nikon equivalents are (except for the AF 35 mm
Nikkor) designs some 30 years old. It does make sense that newer designs
would take advanteage of advancements made in optical design over the last
three decades.
Additionally, wide angle lenses on a rangefinder can be designed for the
rear element to extend further into the camera's body and closer to the
film plane, not needing to clear a rapid return mirror. That can be an
advantage, requiring fewer optical compromises, in wide angle lens design.
But most photographers who I've discussed the matter with who have used
both Nikon and Leica, and who I feel are truely giving me their honest
evaluation, feel most Nikkors and Leica lenses are equally sharp.
Especially when closed down a stop or two.
Where they do differ is delivering a different look to the photos. Leica
lenses tend to hold more shadow details and older Leica lenses (but,
curiously, less so the newer, sharper aspherical versions), tend to give a
smoother rendering to out-of-focus areas. One look is not necessarily
better than the other; rather, what is better depends on which look the
individual photographer prefers.
(Personally, I do prefer the Leica look. But I find the total system far
too limiting, and therefore shoot with Nikons.)
Larry
