Replacing my dead Panasonic 70-200 f4

[pdk42]

I confess that I've never managed to see the "Leica look". In fact, the skeptic in me wants to claim that it's all confirmation bias. For sure Leica do excellent lenses, but so do other manufacturers.

As to what the sensor/digital side of their cameras can do - well, I'm pretty sure that all modern Leicas use sensors and key electronics from other companies (mostly Sony I guess). Maybe they tweak the CFA, maybe they tweak the micro-lenses, maybe they tweak the processing, maybe they do other things - but again, I've never seen an image from a Leica camera that I've thought couldn't be done with any decent camera from another manufacturer.

As well as a skeptic in me, I have a cynic too, and it comes out sometimes to annoy my friends and family. It annoys my photo friends by making claims like "just look at the photos in the Leica threads of photo forums and there is a lot of dross in there". I scold him of course for making such outrageous and libellous claims.

 

[Jayneboo]

I confess that I've never managed to see the "Leica look". In fact, the skeptic in me wants to claim that it's all confirmation bias. For sure Leica do excellent lenses, but so do other manufacturers.

As to what the sensor/digital side of their cameras can do - well, I'm pretty sure that all modern Leicas use sensors and key electronics from other companies (mostly Sony I guess). Maybe they tweak the CFA, maybe they tweak the micro-lenses, maybe they tweak the processing, maybe they do other things - but again, I've never seen an image from a Leica camera that I've thought couldn't be done with any decent camera from another manufacturer.

As well as a skeptic in me, I have a cynic too, and it comes out sometimes to annoy my friends and family. It annoys my photo friends by making claims like "just look at the photos in the Leica threads of photo forums and there is a lot of dross in there". I scold him of course for making such outrageous and libellous claims.

Well Paul, all I will say is that there is plenty of dross on photo forums across all the brands, I wouldn't make a judgement from them. I very much enjoy looking through the LFI gallery photo's, some wonderful images to be found there.

https://lfi-online.de/en/gallery/sl-mastershots.html

It seems Sony rule the world when it comes to sensors:

Sony is the world's top image sensor manufacturer, producing sensors for its own cameras and many competitors. Major camera brands utilizing Sony sensors include
Nikon, Fujifilm, OM Digital Solutions (Olympus), Panasonic (in some models), Pentax/Ricoh, and Hasselblad. These brands frequently use Sony’s CMOS technology for high-resolution, high-speed imaging.

 

[Hythloday]

I confess that I've never managed to see the "Leica look". In fact, the skeptic in me wants to claim that it's all confirmation bias. For sure Leica do excellent lenses, but so do other manufacturers.

As to what the sensor/digital side of their cameras can do - well, I'm pretty sure that all modern Leicas use sensors and key electronics from other companies (mostly Sony I guess).

The reaction of a person says a lot about the person himself/herself. There is no uniform way in colours. Each brand has its own colours. My first digital camera was a Canon Digital Rebel and I used Canon, Sigma and Tokina lenses. In 2006 I bought a Pentax 100D. I used Pentax and Sigma lenses. In 2009 I had a Pentax 17-70mm and a Sigma 17-70mm. When I compared the pictures taken with these two lenses I saw a clear difference in colour rendering. Sometimes the Sigma lens gave a yellowish colour cast. I liked the colours the Pentax 17-70mm gave, better.

In September 2024 I bought a Leica SL2-S with a Lumix 20-60mm. I had to learn picture processing again as I always shoot RAW. It took quite some time to get it right. In December 2024 I bought a Lumix S5. In RAW the colours given by the Leica and the Lumix are very different but after postprocessing them, using Adobe dcp profiles, the differences don't seem very big. The Lumix S5 can give nice colours, just as the Leica SL2-S. When I compare two pictures of a clear blue sky with lots of white clouds I see a difference in colours between the Lumix and the Leica. I prefer the Leica colours.

Whatever you do to tweak colours, there will always be a difference between brands. There are even differences within a brand. I compared some Lumix lenses at aperture 8, trying to see a difference in sharpness. The only clear difference I saw was that the older lenses, such as the 16-35mm, 20-60mm, 24-105mm render colours slightly different than the newer lenses, such as the 14-28mm, 24-60mm or 28-200mm.

There is no accounting for tastes. It is all very subtle and subjective. I have used Pentax for many years, so Leica colours look better for me. A person who has used Canon for many years will like Panasonic colours better, I think.

 

[pdk42]

Well Paul, all I will say is that there is plenty of dross on photo forums across all the brands, I wouldn't make a judgement from them. I very much enjoy looking through the LFI gallery photo's, some wonderful images to be found there..

Yes, I agree. It once more confirms that it’s the photographer that makes the image, mostly. I must deal this cynic character and his outbursts!

Interestingly, I’m currently in Lille and right opposite where my wife’s mother lives is a Leica shop. I peered through the windows yesterday and I wanted to go in, but the shop has a very up market and exclusive feel to it and it felt very intimidating. There was no one inside aside from the shop assistant and I just couldn’t summon up the courage to step inside, even though I have secret cravings for a Q.

Amusingly, the street the shop is on is called “Rue de la monnaie”!

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

When folks refer to the Leica Look, I'm not sure it's these lenses that people are talking of though, far more likely to be the Mandler era lenses.

While I agree othere's a medium format look and a 3d look/pop, I'm not convinced that a Leica look is anything more than a figment of the imaginations of people who have paid vast sums of money for Leica glass and want to be comforted that it gives them something special that other photographers lack.

 

[Jayneboo]

Yes, I agree. It once more confirms that it’s the photographer that makes the image, mostly. I must deal this cynic character and his outbursts!

Interestingly, I’m currently in Lille and right opposite where my wife’s mother lives is a Leica shop. I peered through the windows yesterday and I wanted to go in, but the shop has a very up market and exclusive feel to it and it felt very intimidating. There was no one inside aside from the shop assistant and I just couldn’t summon up the courage to step inside, even though I have secret cravings for a Q.

Amusingly, the street the shop is on is called “Rue de la monnaie”!

I've been a Leica user for a long time now but still haven't been in a Leica Shop, never felt I quite had the "Leica Look" myself but totally appreciate the whole Leica Gestalt.

Exactly, the photographer not the equipment makes/sees/captures the image. A phone can be the vehicle these days. What I find uncomfortable is the fact that is seems fine to label/ridicule/critique less than great images made by those who chose to spend their hard earned money on a Leica, always assuming more money than sense or that the purchase was made believing the red dot would make for better photographs, I'm not sure anyone really thinks that. All the gear - no idea, happens across all brands. I've been on Canon forum's where users have been out and bought a R5II and a big white Prime and then ask the most ridiculous questions, two weeks before their Safari trip.

As for the "Leica Look" spending ten minutes on the Leica Forum will very clearly show that many Leica users believe it to be nonsense and it makes for pages and pages of silly debate. Live and let live, people, if you want to believe, then believe. When I first started using a rangefinder I firmly believed the LL was simply slightly OOF images, it took a while (joke).

Here we are on the L Mount Forum, which originated with Leica - praise be!!!

 

[xaviergut]

I have to say that I did once think I could perceive the "Leica look": my wife has the Leica D-LUX 7, which has a sensor the same size as those in Micro Four Thirds cameras but with a Leica lens. Comparing the images from all the Micro Four Thirds cameras we've owned since 2018 (Olympus EM10 II, EM5 II, EM1 III, Lumix GM1, GX80, GX9, and G100), the images from the Lumix cameras with the Panaleica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.7 and Panaleica 15mm f1.7 lenses are the closest to the quality of the D-LUX 7. The images from the latter have a different quality, with better contrast and detail.

That's why I wanted to know if it could be similar in full-frame format...

 

[Travis Butler]

While I agree othere's a medium format look and a 3d look/pop, I'm not convinced that a Leica look is anything more than a figment of the imaginations of people who have paid vast sums of money for Leica glass and want to be comforted that it gives them something special that other photographers lack.

I will say I’ve noticed a distinctive “look” to the PanLeica M4/3 lenses like the 15mm and the 20-60, though it’s not exclusive to those lenses. I’ve also noticed similar qualities in other photos presented as examples of the “Leica look”. They are qualities I value and have talked about here before, so I may be biased. ^^;;

The common factors I tend to think of:

• Vivid/contrasty colors (and monochrome) - although those aren’t Leica-unique, Konica Hexanon lenses have them as well.
• “Microcontrast” - this is another one of those terms that varies depending on who’s using it. I’d define it as sharp, crisp delineation between boundaries/edges, without bleed over or fuzziness. It doesn’t technically mean higher resolution, but it makes details stand out more and makes things look sharper.
• Tonality - this is one of my big hobbyhorses. Very smooth gradients capable of rendering very fine distinctions between tonal shades. It’s the opposite of photos with lots of banding, or large areas flattened down to a few tonal values.
• Bokeh - smooth rendering of out-of-focus areas with smooth transitions between foreground and background.

I certainly won’t claim they are unique to Leica - my favorite Minolta 35-70 will often show all of those qualities, and I also mentioned the Hexanons above. But I do see them on the pics I see cited for the “Leica look”.

 

[pdk42]

There’s only one way to settle this argument. Someone needs to post up a set of images, some Leica and some not, then get others to say what lens/camera was used. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between people’s perception and reality.

 

[Jayneboo]

There’s only one way to settle this argument. Someone needs to post up a set of images, some Leica and some not, then get others to say what lens/camera was used. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between people’s perception and reality.

I think that's quite an ask on a forum given the restrictions, a totally different task to maybe comparing (for example) results from one 50mm lens to another on a test chart, the variables are endless, too subjective.

 

[pdk42]

I think that's quite an ask on a forum given the restrictions, a totally different task to maybe comparing (for example) results from one 50mm lens to another on a test chart, the variables are endless, too subjective.

Yes, I think it would be a very hard test to do without introducing bias or other unwanted skewing of the result. It ideally would need to be triple blind - in terms of those doing the PP, those doing the test admin, and of course those doing the picking. Definitely out of scope of a little forum like this.

 

[Hythloday]

Someone needs to post up a set of images, some Leica and some not, then get others to say what lens/camera was used.

There is a difference in IQ between the original picture and the same picture posted on the internet. In 2024 I did some test to see if people could recognise the FF picture compared to three APS-C pictures. I used 4 different cameras and 4 different lenses. I got many reactions about poor post processing, etc., but did not get the response I wanted. My conclusion could be that there is no difference in IQ between a Pentax APS-C camera and a Leica FF camera, but that would not be correct.

Some 5 years ago I bought a Pentax limited lens. Some people are very enthousiastic about its IQ. I compared it to a zoom and the edges and corners of the zoom were considerably sharper than those of the limited lens, so I sold the limited lens. Some years later I looked at the pictures made with the limited lens again and noticed they had something special and stood out from other pictures. My conclusion is that I had to learn to appreciate that special IQ.

There is a review of the Leica 24-70mm lens:

"I am just as surprised as many of you reading this to report that yes, the Leica Vario-Elmarti-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH lens does actually perform better on Leica cameras than other L-mount lens options do. While we will delve deeper into the differences between this lens and the Sigma at a later date, this fact alone may be enough to prove it’s not simply “rehoused.”"

Leica 24-70mm f/2.8 Review: Perhaps Not Just a Rehoused Sigma

Leica recently introduced its $2,795 Vario-Elmarti-SL 24-70mm f/2.8 ASPH lens, the latest zoom lens for L-Mount systems. It's not what most would call

petapixel.com

Is the Leica quality worth its price? That is very subjective. I did not buy it, because the weight is too much: a heavy Leica SL2-S plus a heavy Leica 24-70mm is a bit too weighty for my kind of photography. But other people may have different reasons such as Leica means 'no value for money'.

 

[DonaldM]

Guilty as charged. I have a Leica sl2 and a 24-90mm. I bought the zoom in 2017 and made thousands of pictures with it. I also have several other lenses from Sigma and older R and M lenses, some date back to the seventies. They were from my father and a friend. I also played with a LUMIX S5IIx. Is there a clear difference? No, I don’t think so. Yes there are some subtle differences in colour rendering between the lenses, especially between the older and modern ones. Most of the modern lenses give a cleaner, neutral look and are generally sharper (but not always).
I tend to start with a neutral profile and then ‘develop’ to taste, striving for a look representing reality as far as I remembered it.
I choose for a Leica for their build quality and longlivety I got all those years working with them (my first Leica camera was a second hand R4, which I still have). What I like about my Leicas is their user interface, I found it much simpler than the LUMIX. I tuned the LUMIX to my taste, so I didn’t have to look to much in the menus. Are there better cameras, I am sure of that, but I am committed to L-mount, so a no go area.
Are there better lenses than those from Leica? Better than the SL APO’s? Hardly, better than the other lenses from Leica, mostly reworked from Panasonic and Sigma: yes I think so. But: the APO’s are heavy and prohibitively expensive, even second hand. I had the opportunity to play with them, but the modern Sigma Art lenses deliver 90-95% of the quality. So, long live the L-mount alliance where you can choose for cheap, expensive, large, heavy, small lenses with different rendering. In fact too many to choose from. I tend to choose for lenses from Sigma as I like their business model and the quality they deliver.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

The LK Samyang 60-180mm f/2.8 could be a possibility as a replacement. No idea yet of price, weight (though it does look small), IQ or availability, but something to bear in mind.

 

[DonaldM]

There are a lot of Chinese lenses coming. But how good will their after sales service be!?

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

There are a lot of Chinese lenses coming. But how good will their after sales service be!?

True. But are any of those lenses zooms? For your first ever zoom to be a fast 70-200mm would be very bold.