Leica M vs. Nikon AF practical test

Jean-Claude Berger - Consultant, Formateur indépendant - MCSE - MCT - MCP
Formations Systèmes Microsoft, Windows 2003, XP, 2000, NT
SQL Server, ISA Server, TCP/IP
Conseil et Développement
Home

Here is a highly flammable question. Each time somebody dares to speak about the relative quality of Leica M lenses, the war begins again. I read hundred of newsgroups posts about it and I could not make my mind. Despite some reasonable advises, most posters seemed to loose control when such a thread appears.

Leica M5, Summicron 35 mm,
Kodak TMax 400, Lyon,
It says "It is dangerous to let children play in this garden"

Yes, I could refer to magazines or Web sites but I what do their tests really mean ? What is the effective difference between a lens rated 4.1 and another rated 4.3 on Photodo? Most testers say that modern lenses are generally so good that there is no palpable difference in real situations photography. Some Leicaists assert that a picture shot with a Leica M stands out brilliantly from all others. Who to believe?

So, I had to make my own tests.

How did I do it ?

I decided to use Tmax 400 instead of a very fine film because I wanted to get results that could apply to everyday photography. Moreover, if there were a visible difference with fast film this one would be a lot more obvious with a slow one.

Secondly, I shot handheld. Most of you will shout this is a joke. Well, not in my mind. Again, in real life photography, most shot are made handheld. Moreover, rangefinder cameras are supposed to be less prone to vibrations than reflex, I wanted to verify it. After all, we use lenses plus bodies altogether, aren’t we ? Again, "Does a handheld test on fast film mean anything?" gives some elements on those questions.

Moreover, a soon to be published conventional test draws the same conclusions than this one.

I took these pictures on a very cloudy day in order to get a weak contrast. This had also the advantage that light was perfectly constant during the five minutes I needed to shoot.

What did I test ?

On the Leica side

A Summicron 35 mm (f/2 for those who are not Leica specialists) of the last generation before the aspheric one. Mine was made in 1992 but the design dates back to 1979.

A Summicron 50 mm (f/2 too) DR. For non Leicaist readers, this is a lens made between 1956 and 1968 that had a double focusing range (somewhat like a macro position for a zoom) that allowed to focus from 50 cm to 90 cm then from 90 cm to infinity. As far as I know, there have been two generations of 50 mm between this one and the present one. Mine presents some light scratches on the frontal element.

On the Nikon side

A Nikon AFD 35/2 mm bought in 1998. Generally rated as very good. Really sharp indeed.

A Nikon AF 50/1.8 mm from 1997. This lens one of the two sharpest lens I have tested (the other one is the Nikon 60/2.8 Macro). It was head and shoulders above all Zeiss lenses I put my hands on, for example.

As you can see, Leica lenses are not at the top of the present Leica range. All tests I read indicate that new models are better than older ones. Nikon lenses are those you could buy just now. However, I think this is a fair match because few of us can afford an all-new Leica gear. There are chances that, if you take the plunge, you’ll build yours progressively with more or less modern lenses.

Here are the actual pictures

35 mm picture. The focus was made on the circled tree root.

50 mm picture. The focus was made on the circled tree root.

The two trees are at the same distance from the camera.

Remarks

The tests have no absolute value. In the conditions I made them, the only valid comparisons are 35 vs. 35 mm and 50 vs. 50 mm. Comparing different focal lengths doesn't make sense.

The pictures you are going to see (at least on the 35 mm at ful aperture page, on other pages, pictures are croped tighter but the ratio is kept) represent a square of about 3 mm x 3 mm on the negative. That is to say, you will get a 25 to 30X ratio on your screen. That corresponds to a 70 cm x 1 m enlargement.

The pictures

You'll be able to make your own opinion. On each test pages, you will see the pictures produced by the competitors. There is no caption in order to free your mind from influence. Just click on an image to see which lens took it. I used ordinary HTML links instead of JavaScript because I didn't wanted to restrict access to most recent browsers.

Leica M5, Summaron 35/3.5 mm,
Agfa HDC+ 400, Lyon, Musée St. Pierre

35 mm at full aperture
35 mm at f/4

50 mm at full aperture
50 mm at f/4

My opinion
Your comments

Back to photo pages