>>4400834
And the TTArtisan one its like, what 100 bucks? And will be literally the same thing

>>4400834
Even sigma lenses blow leica away, even in the bokeh department. It's all gearfag schizophrenia akin to the people who buy gibson electric guitars and think the QC failures and shitty paint add to the tone. None of them are rich, but they all really want to be.

Remember this when you see gearfags: Anything under $10k fits on the credit card of a low wage fast food worker

so leica won?

>>4400873
Yes, if by winning you mean being unusable wide open which is arguably the main point of an F1 and costing $6k.

>>4400836
In a sense it is good that the Chinese are making these things and destroying the illusion that fast aperture and unicorn lenses exhibit magical qualities. Some of the chinesium lenses I'm sure surpass the optical performance of the originals as well and in other cases they are what? 90-95% there?

>>4400842
>Even sigma lenses blow leica away, even in the bokeh department. It's all gearfag schizophrenia akin to the people who buy gibson electric guitars and think the QC failures and shitty paint add to the tone. None of them are rich, but they all really want to be.
I see a lot of the same tendencies in the audiophile department where people are paying tens of thousands of dollars for some piece of gear that adds nothing, not to mention that we all hear differently and have different preferences when it comes to sound. In the same way it could be argued that we see differently and that bokeh for instance is a matter of taste. A good, interesting photo that is appealing to the masses wont be judged based on its bokeh, yet somehow there is a demographic that thinks this adds a whole lot and is something that is worth thousands. From my understanding this never carried much weight in the pre-internet era.
Quite frankly I've come to learn to like "busy" aka cheap bokeh because of how different it looks compared to what is expected today.

>>4400834
Not super surprising. Most third party M mount lenses are 99% of the way, or better than the Leica equivalents, which stand mostly on brand name alone in my opinion.
>>4400842
There's definitely an element of superstition when it comes to Leica lenses, as if they're some kind of magic.
I remember one time I was with friends during some celebrations in Amsterdam and I spoke with a guy who had a Leica M and Leica lens and the way he spoke about the lens would give you the impression that he as the photographer was secondary to the lens.
>>4400885
Busy bokeh is nice, I think it can really add texture to an image when used properly.

>>4400885
So called busy bokeh is actually fine. What sucks balls is nervous bokeh where it looks like in focus aberrations instead of defocus, like decentered lenses get. A lot of micro four thirds lenses are guilty of this and its one of those "revealed" aberrations (along with surprise CA/Coma) that only shows up on 61mp snoys due to the pixel pitch being smaller than the lens flaws.

Most optics are only good enough for 24-36mp ff. Maybe if you’re up to date on mirrorless lenses, 50mp FF and 20mp APSC (which is already demanding enough for the sharp midframe to become blurry and CA ridden on average glass)

>>4400834
>the Noctilux $6000
What in the fuck lmfao
I got curious cause I don't know shit about this lens so imagine my surprise when this is the first link I see on it and holy shit my sides:
https://mrleica.com/leica-noctilux-50mm-f1/

I genuinely don't understand leica enjoyers, hell a rf 50mm 1.2f blows this out of the water in IQ and bokeh smoothness for a third of the fucking price.
Genuinely what is the appeal here? Is it just because leica? Why is this lens so damn expensive.

>>4401026
He is clearly biased if you check out his review of the noctilux and compare it to the nokton. The noctilux is somehow "sharp" in the center when it is clear from the photos that it is soft as cotton, the noctilux has more vignetting etc. This is just brand snobbery in my opinion as he gives the noctilux a pass for the same flaws exhibited by the nokton. There is no way anyone is getting any measurable benefit from the additional $5400.

>>4400834
the voightlander lenses don't hold their value. not that I'd pay for leica shit, but I bought a 17.5 voightlander for $1,000 in 2017 and keh is only offering like $300 for it

>>4401031
Same story with the Nokton. It was $1100 retail, can be had for around $400 on ebay. In general photography gear is a money drain.

>>4401035
..and that is amplified with anything Leica.

>>4401037
leica is a money drain and costs way more than it is worth, but retards will pay you closer to full price for used leica shit

>>4401044
Gotta wonder if Leica has some sort of shill bidding on auction sites as it was confirmed that Rolex had a habit of doing, thus inflating the used market pricing.

>>4401026
>lying on the internet
He already bought it didn't he