(apologies for the cross post but there's a MF digital/Leica forum split here)
I am currently a reasonably long term Phase One/Mamiya AFD/DF shooter using various P+, Aptus and now IQ backs. I'm strictly amateur although I'd like to consider myself quality driven as far as my imaging is concerned. Which all leads me to the following:
Over time I've become increasingly frustrated with the DF system and have been considering a change. I do like the Schneider glass although I've grown to loathe certain aspects of the DF system such as occasional unreliability and overal system integration. This has made me curious about the S2 system, especially now that Leica actually have a reasonable spread of usable focal lengths available (ok, in theory at least!).
I'm pretty au fait with the S2 camera system capabilities but I was wondering if anyone has qualitatively compared the Phase LS 55/80/110/150 against the equivalent S lenses?
Now I realize that if I ask this question on the Leica forum that I'll get the Leica bias and likewise here probably the Phase One (or Hassy) bias but I'm curious if anyone has compared these objectively or could comment or point me to any previous comparisons.
In due course I'll arrange a rental/demo but in the meantime any feedback from phase one / S2 users who've maybe made this switch or comparison would be welcomed.
Thanks in advance.
Well, after all the posts has anyone answered the original question? Has anyone with experience with the Schneider M mount lenses done a direct comparison with the S2 lenses, and then switched? That is a tough question since swapping MFD systems is a very traumatic undertaking, and the shooting style element of anyone who did swap would also be a mitigating factor anyway ... not to mention that each of us sees differently.
By extension, each of us has an impression of how a lens contributes to the over-all imaging chain on the way to the final result. IMO, it really doesn't matter what descriptive terms we use, we know what we're looking for ... it's the difference between using words to convey what we like, and simply seeing what we like ... I personally don't care what the science is behind it as much as others may ... I only care whether it looks the way I want it to.
In my trek there were lenses that became iconic to my mind and way of seeing, and while moving forward these lenses became the touch stone for "creative" comparison. So it wasn't a single system that set the benchmark, it was a collection.
For me, after many years and many lenses, nothing ever beat the Zeiss 120/4 macro for the Contax 645 ... until the Leica S2 120/2.5. The S35mm is simply in a class by itself (as I suspect the new 30mm will also be) ... IMO, no other W/A even comes close to this 35mm MFD lens no matter who made them. Longer glass is a harder category to define one premium maker from the next. Suffice it to say nothing I've ever used beats the S180, and it beats most contenders as far as how well corrected it is.
Perhaps my most important comparison has been shooting a M9 with modern M optics side-by-side with the S2 ... and doing so for some time now. Because I am the one processing the files from both, I apply my taste preferences in a similar manner to both. Once done, it is very difficult to tell one from the other except for file size. Rendering, feel, drawing perceptions, micro-contrast, color ... all the words we try to use that our eye simply sees in an instant.
BTW, my M glass optics are Summilux ASPH.
As a funny sort of comparison, my wife has always been able to look at a browser full of shots from various cameras I use, and pick out the Leica M shots ... it's uncanny actually. Interestingly, she cannot segregate the M9 and S2 shots.
That is ALL I ever really wanted, and the S2 delivers it. So, if you don't like the so called "Leica Look," or don't think there is such a thing, then maybe these lenses aren't for you.
-Marc