This is one of my favorite comparison videos I've ever seen. Rarely do I find photographers who are so focused on the beauty of the image rather than corner sharpness and all that other stuff that I do not care about
Where I found the Leica to have a unique impact was during the last session on the beach, with that specific lighting and closer subject. Its distinctive bokeh really stood out in a striking way. For everything else, though, I was more interested by the Nikkor. It's undeniably a more sophisticated lens, and I wasn’t prepared for the results it delivered. It’s quite visible, in the best way possible. This led me to purchase a Nikkor NC version with thorium for a first choice. So to see what role thorium played in the original design. It doesn’t take a specialized degree to guess that replacing thorium with a less radioactive element, like lanthanum, required some changes to the lens curvatures. So time will tell, while having both version. So glad you did this work ST. The vid that said didn't come out the YT search engine at the first try. But was really worth it. //
Your videos have such a vibe to them - absolutely love watching your channel. Insightful comments, lovely images and pov video (not to mention music) just awesome!
Always I am enjoying your unique perspective and point of view. To my eye the Nikkor lens is sharper, much better contrast, and way better flair control. Fact. One of the biggest missed opportunities that Nikon has done is to really sell the amazing quality of their lenses. Lieca has spent so much energy and money telling everyone how amazing their stuff is... while Nikon has spent so much time and money making their stuff amazing. Thank you Steven for making another great video.
True that. To these days. Latest Sony GM lenses are objectively ahead of even the latest of Leica lenses, last Fujifilm X100VI lens is sharper than Q3, even though it's only APS-C. Yet you see and hear complaints about GMs and Fuji, never about Leica optics. Many photographers blindly believe and repeat what Leica tells them, not being able to perceive the objective reality... or not caring about it. I like Leica rangefinders, I like some of their lenses (Noctilux 0.95 is still unique), but at the same time whenever I tried to objectively find the said ultimate optical qualities of Leitz glass, I failed. In 70s-80s manual Nikkors were better (I have many of them, also own/owned many Leica-M alternatives), and now even Sony is better. Leica lenses have "character", but this character can be found in almost any lens, particularly in the cheap Chinese lenses of recent times - it's optical faults that create "character", it's basically recognizable look. Often harsher bokeh, strong vignetting and field curvature, with less contrast, like with Cron 50 or Lux 35...
Thank you, Steven San, for this thoughtful piece . When I first started to take photography seriously, certainly it was the contrast and sharpness of Nikon's lenses that appealed to me. Only later did I begin to appreciate the dreamier character that I found in Leica's lenses. I began using the Leicas for personal work, but continued with the Nikons for commissions. I still use both systems, but in recent years I am drawn more to the Leica. Not though, because one is better than the other. Is poetry better than prose? Is Bill Evans better on vinyl or digital? Certainly his genius can be heard on them all. And whether Mount Fuji better when seem from the beach or through a gap in the curtains of a poor man's window? No one can say? but perhaps it is the work of a photographer to ask the question.
I just bought a nice used Nikon 35mm f1.4 AI for my Nikon FM3a - I am pleased to say, that I acually prefer the rendering of the Nikon lens in your video from the Leica Summilux ❤
Great video. I have exactly both lenses and cameras. I cannot surge difference between them. But with a large BLOWUP there might be a difference which might show the Leica as better. RS. Canada
Wonderful comparison ! I wanted to point out that perhaps as a tribute to the old Nikon 35 f1.4, Nikon has now introduced a Nikon Z mount 35mm f1.4 which , though lacking some of the ultra-precise sharpness of the Z f1.8, does manage to bring back just a little bit more of the classic Nikon film era lens glow.
Both lenses is good, had the 35mm 1.2 ais in my D700 days, worked wonderfully, especially in pair with 45mm Nikkor P ( the 45mm is as close to a 50mm elmar you get on a Nikon) Have had the 35mm pre asph for at least 7 years now it fits my Monochrom perfectly. Each lenses great for its own use . Btw a 35mm nikkor 1.4 probably costs as much as the lens hood for the summilux, so in that case its a steal, except it does not fit a Leica M :)
Hallo Steven, I really like vintage rangefinder lenses they are so small. I have a Summicron 35mm version 3 which flies a little bit under the radar. It's a lot cheaper than the Summilux and minimum close focus distance is 0,7m. It's sharp in the center and has the Leica glow wide open. It compliments modern lenses pretty well. Wonderful video. Thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights.
Thank you! .. ▪︎ I use a Nikon F3, mostly for some specially adapted lenses. I don't have a general-purpose prime lens. This might just be the one for me. 👌 ▪︎ For most 35mm film work, I'm using Leica M cameras: M3, M2, M7 & M-A . I have 35mm Summicron with goggles and a Summaron, both of which are wonderful. However, your presentation of the Pre-Asph Summilux f1.4 still haunts me, 😶 .. and that lens is on the wish list, where it may have to remain for a while. Good to see you again! Cheers from Kevin, Philippines /Thailand /Australia. 🎨 + 📷
Enjoyable comparison! When I, 1st used Nikkor lenses, I immediately noted the higher contrast, to my Leitz lenses. Sharpness definitely! Leitz became Leica and lenses all upgraded! I still have not updated my Leica Gear! I enjoy my equipment, old and battered. Many of my Nikkor/Nikon lenses are superbly made! Equal to Leica!
Thank you for the video. I shoot digital, but when I do find the Nikon 35mm f1.4 ais in my price range, I will definitely consider it. I want to compare it to the Minolta Rokkor 35mm f1.8
I had this Nikon 35mm and loved it. Lost it long ago on an island under strange circumstances. Then 7 years later visited this island a second time and almost lost my life -- so somehow I tend to regard it as having given the lens to retain my life...
Very interesting. Subjectively, I preferred the 'feeling' from the Summilux photos, but I can't decide why - is it their particular look, or maybe (not deliberately) there is something intuitive for you with the Summilux, and the photos themselves are simply better? For the Nikon, perhaps it would be interesting to find a pre-AI version, to see if the earlier glass types and coatings bring that lens even closer to the Summilux. The good news is that they are not too expensive. Oh, one suggestion: maybe if you do another lens comparison, when you show the photos, maybe label them 'lens A', and 'lens B', and reveal the identity of the lenses later in the video? Anyway, another great video Steven, thank you.
Really enjoyed this video. Makes me wish I had a Nikon. Could you do a video in the future where you compare your summilux to your 8 element summicron? (Even a short video would be awesome)
Hello Steven ! This is Rahul Deshpande from India. Feel happy to see your videos. Kindly review Nikkor 80-200 2.8 I see that you have used it on your F3 Enjoy 🎉
This is one of my favorite comparison videos I've ever seen. Rarely do I find photographers who are so focused on the beauty of the image rather than corner sharpness and all that other stuff that I do not care about
@@nsquezada27 much appreciate ❤️
Where I found the Leica to have a unique impact was during the last session on the beach, with that specific lighting and closer subject.
Its distinctive bokeh really stood out in a striking way.
For everything else, though, I was more interested by the Nikkor. It's undeniably a more sophisticated lens, and I wasn’t prepared for the results it delivered. It’s quite visible, in the best way possible. This led me to purchase a Nikkor NC version with thorium for a first choice. So to see what role thorium played in the original design.
It doesn’t take a specialized degree to guess that replacing thorium with a less radioactive element, like lanthanum, required some changes to the lens curvatures.
So time will tell, while having both version. So glad you did this work ST. The vid that said didn't come out the YT search engine at the first try. But was really worth it. //
Nikon 35mm is the winner for me. Beautiful captures.
Thank you for this comparison. Very well done.
Thanks for watching!
Your videos have such a vibe to them - absolutely love watching your channel. Insightful comments, lovely images and pov video (not to mention music) just awesome!
Thank you so much:)
Always I am enjoying your unique perspective and point of view.
To my eye the Nikkor lens is sharper, much better contrast, and way better flair control. Fact.
One of the biggest missed opportunities that Nikon has done is to really sell the amazing quality of their lenses.
Lieca has spent so much energy and money telling everyone how amazing their stuff is... while Nikon has spent so much time and money making their stuff amazing.
Thank you Steven for making another great video.
Really nice comment!
True that. To these days. Latest Sony GM lenses are objectively ahead of even the latest of Leica lenses, last Fujifilm X100VI lens is sharper than Q3, even though it's only APS-C. Yet you see and hear complaints about GMs and Fuji, never about Leica optics. Many photographers blindly believe and repeat what Leica tells them, not being able to perceive the objective reality... or not caring about it. I like Leica rangefinders, I like some of their lenses (Noctilux 0.95 is still unique), but at the same time whenever I tried to objectively find the said ultimate optical qualities of Leitz glass, I failed. In 70s-80s manual Nikkors were better (I have many of them, also own/owned many Leica-M alternatives), and now even Sony is better. Leica lenses have "character", but this character can be found in almost any lens, particularly in the cheap Chinese lenses of recent times - it's optical faults that create "character", it's basically recognizable look. Often harsher bokeh, strong vignetting and field curvature, with less contrast, like with Cron 50 or Lux 35...
Thank you, Steven San, for this thoughtful piece . When I first started to take photography seriously, certainly it was the contrast and sharpness of Nikon's lenses that appealed to me. Only later did I begin to appreciate the dreamier character that I found in Leica's lenses. I began using the Leicas for personal work, but continued with the Nikons for commissions. I still use both systems, but in recent years I am drawn more to the Leica. Not though, because one is better than the other. Is poetry better than prose? Is Bill Evans better on vinyl or digital? Certainly his genius can be heard on them all. And whether Mount Fuji better when seem from the beach or through a gap in the curtains of a poor man's window? No one can say? but perhaps it is the work of a photographer to ask the question.
I just bought a nice used Nikon 35mm f1.4 AI for my Nikon FM3a - I am pleased to say, that I acually prefer the rendering of the Nikon lens in your video from the Leica Summilux ❤
Great video. I have exactly both lenses and cameras. I cannot surge difference between them. But with a large BLOWUP there might be a difference which might show the Leica as better.
RS. Canada
Thank you for this video Steven. Love your videos
Glad you like them!
Wonderful comparison ! I wanted to point out that perhaps as a tribute to the old Nikon 35 f1.4, Nikon has now introduced a Nikon Z mount 35mm f1.4 which , though lacking some of the ultra-precise sharpness of the Z f1.8, does manage to bring back just a little bit more of the classic Nikon film era lens glow.
Love your videos! Thank you for sharing Steven.
Both lenses is good, had the 35mm 1.2 ais in my D700 days, worked wonderfully, especially in pair with 45mm Nikkor P ( the 45mm is as close to a 50mm elmar you get on a Nikon) Have had the 35mm pre asph for at least 7 years now it fits my Monochrom perfectly. Each lenses great for its own use . Btw a 35mm nikkor 1.4 probably costs as much as the lens hood for the summilux, so in that case its a steal, except it does not fit a Leica M :)
Hallo Steven, I really like vintage rangefinder lenses they are so small. I have a Summicron 35mm version 3 which flies a little bit under the radar. It's a lot cheaper than the Summilux and minimum close focus distance is 0,7m. It's sharp in the center and has the Leica glow wide open. It compliments modern lenses pretty well. Wonderful video. Thank you so much for sharing your valuable insights.
Thanks, yes I also have a old Summicron and I love its glow.
Great video and lovely pictures, thank you for sharing Steven!
Thank you! ..
▪︎ I use a Nikon F3, mostly for some specially adapted lenses. I don't have a general-purpose prime lens. This might just be the one for me. 👌
▪︎ For most 35mm film work, I'm using Leica M cameras: M3, M2, M7 & M-A . I have 35mm Summicron with goggles and a Summaron, both of which are wonderful.
However, your presentation of the Pre-Asph Summilux f1.4 still haunts me, 😶
.. and that lens is on the wish list, where it may have to remain for a while.
Good to see you again! Cheers from Kevin, Philippines /Thailand /Australia. 🎨 + 📷
Glad to hear that:)
Enjoyable comparison! When I, 1st used Nikkor lenses, I immediately noted the higher contrast, to my Leitz lenses. Sharpness definitely! Leitz became Leica and lenses all upgraded! I still have not updated my Leica Gear! I enjoy my equipment, old and battered.
Many of my Nikkor/Nikon lenses are superbly made! Equal to Leica!
Totally agree!
Excellent video. Two great lenses.🏆👍
Thank you for the video. I shoot digital, but when I do find the Nikon 35mm f1.4 ais in my price range, I will definitely consider it. I want to compare it to the Minolta Rokkor 35mm f1.8
A wonderful video. Two great lenses, each different, each for better reasons.
//
Great video, thanks for making this interesting comparison...
Thanks for watching!
I had this Nikon 35mm and loved it.
Lost it long ago on an island under strange circumstances.
Then 7 years later visited this island a second time and almost lost my life --
so somehow I tend to regard it as having given the lens to retain my life...
great story👍
May I ask which mysterious island？
Great job Steven. Thank you 🙏
Wonderful video. Thank you
RS. Canada
Very interesting. Subjectively, I preferred the 'feeling' from the Summilux photos, but I can't decide why - is it their particular look, or maybe (not deliberately) there is something intuitive for you with the Summilux, and the photos themselves are simply better? For the Nikon, perhaps it would be interesting to find a pre-AI version, to see if the earlier glass types and coatings bring that lens even closer to the Summilux. The good news is that they are not too expensive.
Oh, one suggestion: maybe if you do another lens comparison, when you show the photos, maybe label them 'lens A', and 'lens B', and reveal the identity of the lenses later in the video?
Anyway, another great video Steven, thank you.
Thank you so much😄
Really enjoyed this video. Makes me wish I had a Nikon. Could you do a video in the future where you compare your summilux to your 8 element summicron? (Even a short video would be awesome)
Great idea!
Thanks this video is amazing
Lovely sir, thank you best
Most welcome
Hello Steven ! This is Rahul Deshpande from India. Feel happy to see your videos.
Kindly review Nikkor 80-200 2.8 I see that you have used it on your F3
Enjoy 🎉
I'll think about it, thank you.
Amazing 👍🤙👏🇦🇷
中毒了被老師種草剛收了個ais35mm1.4, 尼康這款35mm也有綽號叫“酒吧之眼”但估計老師和我的歲數不再是午夜酒吧的常客早睡早起才是我們永恆的常態😊
@@05April 哈哈哈哈