Fuji vs Leica Lens

[Virtuoso]

Just out of curiosity, has anybody compared the Fuji primes with Leica?  I understand Leica manufactures arguably the best camera lenses in the world. How far are Fuji lenses?

 

[milandro]

The problem, as I understand it, is hot to compare the two.

 

The lenses of digital cameras are in fact not independent from the camera they belong to because once the camera knows which lens is on it, it performs corrections which, even though people think of raw as totally untouched files, are applied to raw files too.

 

If the lens is not electrically connected or unknown to the camera none of these corrections will be applied.

 

If you place any the two systems on their respective cameras you are testing the lens AND the camera sensor and processor at the same time so the results might be biased one way or another by the camera and not only by the intrinsic lens quality, let alone the fact that you will then maybe develop things from raw using different conversion software.

 

If you take the jpeg from the camera you are really messing up the test because the lenses might be better than their output for a software inadequacy.

 

Using the same conversion software, again, might put one sensor processor and software at an advantage over another because the result of one camera perfom better with some cornversion software than with another.

 

The only unbiased way would be to put both on a third party body and thus put them both at the same disadvantage. This would at least level the playing field 

[Marc G.]

Many current-in-production Leica M lenses are quite old designs that cannot compete with today's modern lenses on a technical basis. They still have an excellent reputation. Partially rightly so, but part of the lineup does not deserve the excellent reputation they enjoy.

 

I used Leica M before switching to Fuji. I find most Fujinon glass to be of better quality. Fujinon X Mount lenses are all VERY modern designs (2012+) and do not suffer the same weight and size restrictions than Leica glass.

Leica's lenses are mostly very good, especially when taking the look of the final result into consideration. But from a pure technical standpoint, Fujinon glass is superior. Leica's glass simply suffers from the extreme design restrictions (flange distance, diameter, length paired with sometimes extreme apertures)

[Dis]

In addition to what's said above.

Lenses and cameras of different systems work poorly with each other. Camera sensor has microlens array at the top. These microlenses are designed to work with lenses of specific flange distance. Using lenses with different flange distance decreases maximum possible sharpness. Thus Fuji lenses work better than Leica lenses on Fuji cameras. Leica lenses reach maximum sharpness on Leica cameras. Thus use Fuji lenses with Fuji cameras and Leica lenses with Leica M.

[Marc G.]

To clarify: I didn't use Leica lenses on Fuji cameras. The M lenses were used on an M9

[TopDownDriver]

I shoot both Leica and Fuji.  I'm sorry to say there is no comparison.  The Leica lenses are simply the best lenses I have ever used on any camera and there is no amount of "digital correction" that could put the Fuji lenses in to the same league.

 

That said, the Fuji lenses are extremely good and very appropriate for an auto-focus camera (which the Leica is not). 

[Virtuoso]

Sorry for the hot topic. It's just that I've seen some Leica units and been tempted to consider. I know that the fuji body is technologically more advance than Leica. Which brings us to the lenses. Leica lenses are also bloody expensive hahaha

 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Marc G.]

I shoot both Leica and Fuji.  I'm sorry to say there is no comparison.  The Leica lenses are simply the best lenses I have ever used on any camera and there is no amount of "digital correction" that could put the Fuji lenses in to the same league.

 

That said, the Fuji lenses are extremely good and very appropriate for an auto-focus camera (which the Leica is not). 

Maybe the best lenses YOU have ever used. Certainly not the best lenses on the market. Even in Leica's own lens portfolio there's day and night. 

 

Let's look at some examples:

 

There are technically excellent lenses like: 18/3.8, 21/3.4, 24/3.8, 50/2 APO, 75/2 APO, 90/2 APO, 135/3.4 APO that offer great sharpness, colors and all-around performance.

 

But there are also lenses that suffer severely from focus shift, field curvature (both very hard to predict on a range finder) like: 21/1.4, 24/1.4, 28/2.8 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/2 pre-asph.

 

I actually compared prints from the 56/1.2 and 90/2 APO ASPH Summicron that costs 3.5x as much. I'm sorry to say but the Fujinon delivers superior bokeh, sharpness and a prettier overall image. 

 

If one seeks today's best lenses, the answer is Zeiss. But those are manual focus. Autofocus primes? Sigma ART series, Fujinon XFs but there are at least some in every lens manufacturer's portfolio. Zooms... the same. But sadly, the best of the best doesn't come from Leica.

[milandro]

Again, how would you compare lenses without including, together with the lens itself , the sensor, processor and software of each system ?

 

Any comparison shots and prints will necessarily include all of these things.

 

SO, in the end you will never be comparing the lenses alone.

 

Furthermore, aside from measurable quantities, how would one measure whether one lens offers more pleasant aesthetic results than the other? Is there a way to measure this objectively?

[Marc G.]

Some parts you can only measure subjectively. Sharpness and other aberrations can be measured objectively. But the look comes partly from the perceived sharpness and the bokeh (which is the biggest subjective part).

 

Still, I showed prints to photographers around here and brought them with me to a Leica regulars' table. More photographers preferred the Fuji print over the Leica print. I repeated the test with a black&white print. Of course, Lightroom and the processing software in camera do their part. But most people didn't niggle about the small differences in tonality or contrast but went for the obvious things (sharpness and bokeh). After all, you would expect the Leica glass, paired with a full frame sensor to deliver superior results. That is not the case for the lenses I compared (21/1.8, 28/2 ASPH, 50/1.4 ASPH, 90/2 APO ASPH).

 

Both regarding aberrations & regarding the look, the Fujinons prevailed. It would be interesting to do this on Flickr or similar communities where a lot more people can guess. Can't compare prints like that, though.

[milandro]

So, it comes down to compare the output of the entire systems.

 

You seem to have found your answer in a comparative trial showing that Fuji prints are preferred over those made by Leica files. Whether that is true or not or universally true or not it will need to be confirmed.

 

But this is not what OP asked.

[Marc G.]

That's the way how to compare Fuji primes with Leica primes. Putting Leica primes on Fuji is not the intended use and reduces the performance noticeably.

 

The different sensor format makes comparing them impossible as the same sensor cannot be used.

 

So... all you contributed to this topic is splitting hairs. Anything on topic maybe?

 

Besides, the OP, from my understanding, asked for the optical quality. I gave an answer to the best of my knowledge.

[triton76]

why are people mixing topics & systems to get the best "IQ"? If you made a 'perfect shot' (is there already one availible) - IQ is a tiny piece in a mosaic to a every great image.

Using a OM 4.5/135 (THE standard in Macro Lenses) will only work on film - the Sonnar 2.8/85 is a fantasic lens (anybody with a C/Y body out there) 

If you can't cope with handling as it was thought by designer of camera system - what will be the use of a so called high-end-optic?

Ever tried to do birding with a leica M or complained about AF accuracy in landscape? Do painters discuss about quality of there tools? They discuss about colors, composition, skills, setup ...

 

Photographers tend to stick on technical data  - which is only a single (maybe the tinyest) contribution to a great image. IMHO the complete setup defines the technical quality of an picture, battery failure, portability, haptics - and to be honest:
Does an audiance discuss about pixels or about the 10 (or any other amount of aspects) criterias that make a picture to an unforgettible image

Edited January 28, 2017 by triton76

[milandro]

I did stay on topic, as formulated by OP, which is comparing lens quality not systems. If you compare prints you are comparing more than the optical quality alone.

 

Which is nothing different from many comparisons on line, all comparing, in my view, apples to oranges.

 

http://leicarumors.com/2012/04/11/quick-leica-m9-vs-fuji-x-pro1-image-comparison.aspx/

 

http://www.frankdoorhof.com/site/2013/08/fujifilm-x-e1-vs-leica-m9/

 

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/10/03/crazy-comparison-leica-m-240-fuji-x-m1-and-panasonic-gx7-part-1/

 

I showed no hostility towards your digressing. What you call splitting hairs I call reasoning. Politely disagreeing with each other is part of the process and the essential nature of a forum.

[Shadowside]

Ultimately, Virtuoso (OP) was correct - Leica are in fact ARGUABLY the best lenses... lol

[Adjustable Bias]

If you're curious about comparing Fuji vs Leica lenses on a Fuji body, I did a bunch of comparisons of 50mm options a while back (you don't really want to go wider on a non-Leica body due to distortion in the corners on a sensor that's not prepared for the angle of light coming from a rangefinder lens):

http://www.adjustablebias.com/blog/2014/05/19/fuji-x-t1-50mm-portrait-lens-shootout-day-1-xf-56mm-vs-m-mount-leica-summicron-carl-zeiss-voigtlander/

http://www.adjustablebias.com/blog/2014/05/19/fuji-x-t1-50mm-portrait-shootout-day-2-xf-56mm-vs-leica-summilux-m-and-zeiss-c-sonnar/

 

Ultimately, the older, cheaper (haha, if you can call 1-3k cheaper) Leica lens designs aren't going to hold up against the modern designs from Fuji.  Once you get into the newer, top of the line pixel-perfectionist Leica models, they compare quite similarly in terms of sharpness (or at least they both are outresolving the X sensor's limited megapixel count), and you're more making decisions based on your preferences for things like bokeh rendering, size & the availability of autofocus. 

 

That said, this is all doing a comparison on a Fuji body.  The results of comparing each lens on its own manufacturer's body would likely be different, with many confounding factors as described by other posters.

[ChatNoir]

Having friends owning Leica, while I'm working with both Fuji and Nikon using the better prime glass, I really don't know what to think from Leica. When I listen of my friends stories I'm getting very confused. If there's anything better in Leica's glass, there's a lot to be said about Leica's color accuracy & exposure control. Of course you can overcome a lot with separate exposure meters & expo discs and tweak the rest in post, but aren't we living in 2015? I also know people liking Zeiss-glass over Leica's very own. Well? One anecdote: I once was shooting at the same location with a (Leica-)friend. When we compared our pictures after the shoot - he was so frustrated with my X-Pro1 pictures he send a few of those ones to Leica. Never got an answer. I was really surprised how wrong Leica's exposure & WB could go and in pixel peeping, there was nothing truly sharper or better, even in the corners - than what my XF35mm F1.4 had produced. But I don't underestimate Leica, the SL might be an extremely expensive camera, but when more native glass becomes available I'm convinced this is the kind of FF-camera Fuji should have conceived & build. Despite the massive fanboyism on this forum for APS/C sensors - it's really a missed chance for Fuji not to evolve in this direction. 

[ohm]

I have only compared the Fujifilm 35/1,4 to the Canon 35/1,4 and Leica 35 Summilux (pre-ASPH). They are compared in this article: Speedy 35s from Fujifilm, Canon, and Leica Part 1: Sharpness and DOF.

 

For images shot wide open, the Fujifilm may be the most contrasty, followed by the Leica, and the Canon is far behind. For image draw, it is all up in the air. The 35/1,5 Canon is the wildest, while the Leica has the most unique OOF draw. The Fujinon's bokeh is smoother. It's all personal. The Fujinon 35's draw is superb, but the Leica's unique OOF rendering is my favourite of all 35mm lenses for FF. Of course, it's silly to compare two wide angle lenses (35mm on 35mm film) to a lens with a normal angle of view on APS-C. But I did it. 

Note: I'm not keen on the 35mm FLE Summilux. 

[cug]

Of course, it's silly to compare two wide angle lenses (35mm on 35mm film) to a lens with a normal angle of view on APS-C. But I did it. 

 

Why would this be silly? Comparing a 35 to a 35 is exactly the right thing. The Fuji 35 isn't a "normal 50mm" lens, it's a 35mm lens. That it doesn't render an image circle that fits a FF sensor is a different story but has nothing to do with the physical focal length of the lens.

 

You are actually doing the Leica a favor here as this lens is made to render an image circle filling a larger surface sensor or film with a good image, on APS-C you are just taking "the good parts". You'll have much more drop off in quality towards the corners when you put this lens on a FF sensor.

[ohm]

Why would this be silly? Comparing a 35 to a 35 is exactly the right thing. The Fuji 35 isn't a "normal 50mm" lens, it's a 35mm lens. That it doesn't render an image circle that fits a FF sensor is a different story but has nothing to do with the physical focal length of the lens.

 

You are actually doing the Leica a favor here as this lens is made to render an image circle filling a larger surface sensor or film with a good image, on APS-C you are just taking "the good parts". You'll have much more drop off in quality towards the corners when you put this lens on a FF sensor.

Simply put, the 35mm lenses for Leica are wide-angle lenses built to project a wider angle. The Fuji may be a 35mm lens, but it projects a narrower image. So, we're comparing lens projections for one lens built for the camera and two that are not. If I put on a 35mm LF lens, it would make the comparison even sillier, because that 35mm lens is made to project an image muuuuuuch wider still, and which, depending on the film size, could be anywhere from 16mm (FF) to 23mm (FF). 

 

That, and the LF lens wouldn't get close enough to the sensor on the X-T1 because of the massive flange distance of the X-T1 and adapter. 

 

It IS fair to compare a 35mm built for a certain film size with another 35mm built for the same film size. That makes total sense. For APS-C, the Fujinon is a 35 that isn't a wide angle. It is a 'normal' because of the size of its projection circle. But you know that already. 

 

I am doing no favours to either the Canon or the Leica. I understand the argument: sharpest in centre... but if the only thing you look for in an image is sharpness... and better yet, I used an adapter. It is a Hawk's Factory, which previously I derided for being off-centre, and in parts, not perfectly parallel to the sensor. It also has internal reflections which I have tried to baffle away. I am doing no favours to any non-X lens. As to drop off in corners in a FF camera... you understand of course that by doing so, the lens would then be a wide angle, equivalent to the 23mm on the Fujifilm, so it would be a completely different comparison anyway. 

 

And, you don't know that. The Canon is a 60 year-old lens. The Leica is 20+ years old. Both are built for film, so it is likely that they have more problems at the corners on digital, but without first testing them on their native mounts, I wouldn't dare call that definitive. Again, which is why it is silly to compare any lens built for a different sized sensor on a smaller sensor. The lens wasn't intended for that use, it may be on a poor adapter, its alignment may be wrong even on high quality bellows. There are so many equations. But I did it anyway because it's what I do. I love doing silly comparisons. And make no mistake, it was silly.

[cug]

Simply put, the 35mm lenses for Leica are wide-angle lenses built to project a wider angle. The Fuji may be a 35mm lens, but it projects a narrower image. So, we're comparing lens projections for one lens built for the camera and two that are not.

 

I have a feeling you are mixing concepts of focal length and projection circle.

[ohm]

I have a feeling you are mixing concepts of focal length and projection circle.

I'm not. I compared three lenses, two meant to cover larger film sensors and therefore cover wider angles of view. The third, the 35mm Fujifilm was not designed to be a wide angle lens. It was meant to be a normal lens on a small sensor. Again, a 35mm Rodenstock LF lens is a super wide angle lens. Comparing it to a 35mm APS-C is only apt because the two are 35mm. But they were designed for completely different systems. 

 

I understand that 35mm is 35mm. I'm not stupid. But if you think that a 35mm lens designed for a small sensor has the same design parameters as a 35mm lens designed for even a FF, not to mention MF or LF, there's nothing more to talk about. I called my original method stupid or silly because it is: as always, lenses designed specifically for a system are better: more rigidly attached to a mount; parallel to the film plane, and optimised for the film or sensor. 

 

Conversely, if there were a way to attach the 35 to a FF camera, as you know, it would only illuminate a small portion in the centre, and after cutting out the severe vignetting, you'd be left with the image projected by a native lens somewhere between 50mm and 55mm. If the adapter were good enough, it may even be sharper. Oftentimes lenses built for small sensors are super sharp. I could be wrong, but the iPhone 6 lens, which is extremely sharp on its tiny sensor, would probably out resolve in lpm any Fujifilm lens, if only it cast a large enough image to illuminate more than a few central pixels. 

[cug]

I'm not.

 

If you are not, you're not making a great point in how you express it. If you compare two true 35mm lenses on a fixed sensor size, they are producing the same angle of view. With the examples you give you're just muddling the waters more. If you compare two 35mm on the same camera and sensor that is a totally valid comparison and they should (as long as the 35mm are actuals and not "roughly 35mm" like on many lenses) lead to exactly the same result. 

 

Sure, 35mm lenses built for different "sensor" sizes have different projection circles and therefore different difficulties to deal with, but they are still 35mm lenses and when projecting on the same sensor give the same angle of view. That they aren't meant for "only" this angle of view is a different story, if you compare them on an APS-C sized sensor you're actually generally cutting off the parts where the lenses built for a larger projection circle fall off and therefore they can sometimes deliver better results across the smaller frame than on their native mounts. 

 

I totally understand what you are saying, my opinion is that you're not making your point very clear. As long as you always take the same projection area from each lens, a 35mm is a 35mm is a 35mm lens. There's no difference in angle of view when compared on the same "sensor size". Whether they are meant for that sensor size is a different story.

[ohm]

If you are not, you're not making a great point in how you express it. If you compare two true 35mm lenses on a fixed sensor size, they are producing the same angle of view. With the examples you give you're just muddling the waters more. If you compare two 35mm on the same camera and sensor that is a totally valid comparison and they should (as long as the 35mm are actuals and not "roughly 35mm" like on many lenses) lead to exactly the same result. 

 

Sure, 35mm lenses built for different "sensor" sizes have different projection circles and therefore different difficulties to deal with, but they are still 35mm lenses and when projecting on the same sensor give the same angle of view. That they aren't meant for "only" this angle of view is a different story, if you compare them on an APS-C sized sensor you're actually generally cutting off the parts where the lenses built for a larger projection circle fall off and therefore they can sometimes deliver better results across the smaller frame than on their native mounts. 

 

I totally understand what you are saying, my opinion is that you're not making your point very clear. As long as you always take the same projection area from each lens, a 35mm is a 35mm is a 35mm lens. There's no difference in angle of view when compared on the same "sensor size". Whether they are meant for that sensor size is a different story.

You are right that I'm not making my point clear. But I stand by the WHY I said it: they were made for a different purpose, and for different system, therefore the only thing they have or should have in common is the angle of view on the third-party system, which, in this case, is the X-T1. Anyway, while I like that I did the test, it was pretty unfair to even the 50 year-old lens to shoot it on such a wobbly adapter. Ditto the Leica. If I did it again, I would have probably used the Fujifilm adapter (which I don't have) or shoot the other two lenses on an A7r or M240, then either crop the images to APS-C, or use 50mm lenses instead. 

 

That adapter is hugely problematic. Still, the 35 Fujifilm 1,4 is a great lens.

[cug]

That adapter is hugely problematic. Still, the 35 Fujifilm 1,4 is a great lens.

 

No doubt. I love mine.