m9 + 35mm summicron

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i having been using the 35mm summicron on my m9 and am dissatisfied. i like the fov but find the rendering overly critical -- it looks like a digital photo. the 50mm summliux is so much better, even my 90mm summarit and 21mm zeiss zm give me a less digital picture.

 

my question then is as follows -- what is a reasonable alternative? i like the 28mm summicron but don't really want to go wider. are there any other 35mm, new or old, that people can recommend for the m9 to get a less clinical look?

 

thanks

steve

[richfx]

With the M9, every photo is digital. Take a look at the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2.8 ZM. Amazing lens if you don't need faster. It compares very favorably in terms of IQ to the new 35mm Summilux FLE at f/2.8 and beyond.

Here's a review by Steve Huff:

 

The Zeiss ZM 35 C-Biogon 2.8 Lens Review | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

Rich

[glacierparkmagazine]

I use a 35 summarit. It's a really nice, very tiny lens. The colors are great, the bokeh isn't as soft as my 50 cron, but it's certainly not bad.

[wda]

Steve, thoughtful and imaginative post-processing can enable you to make subtle changes to any lens rendering. It is worth experimenting before discarding a well-proven and much-loved lens.

 

For further inspiration, consider working through David duChemin's 'Vision & Voice'. It was my Christmas reading of choice and I am now beginning to experiment with his downloadable sample images and my own. It offers a new approach to rendering digital images which might solve your problem and more.

[JWW]

Not sure what you exactly mean by looking digital or which Summicron model you have but the older pre ASPH 35 Summicron V4 that I own and like to use has a lower contrast image, slightly different bokeh, and slightly softer wide open than the more modern ASPH versions. The decreased contrast is more obvious in B&W images and helps control contrast during the sunny days here in Hawaii.

[lct]

I don't buy into the so-called "clinical" rendering of the 35/2 asph as opposed to the alleged smoothness of current 28/2 asph or 35/2.5. The 35/2 asph has a more contrasty bokeh than the latters generally but otherwise i could hardly tell a difference between those lenses at the same aperture. If one wants a softer rendition, better forget current lenses and go for an earlier one like the 35/2 v4. It will give less contrast and a smoother bokeh but more flare and less sharpness at f/2.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Try the 35mm Skopar

[likalar]

Sorry to hear that you are unhappy with your Summicron 35. In the long run, though, in the digital capture world, I think it much better to have to lightly degrade the critical rendering in pp, than to have a softer, creamier lens that needs ramping up later for the shots you want tack sharp and crispy (if ever). Which 35 do you use? If the latest ASPH, maybe try to get your hands on an earlier version for a few frames. My ASPH Summicron is rather clinical compared to my v2. Good luck.

 

Larry

[jaapv]

What is a "digital photo look" as imparted by the lens? Surely that depends on the camera and postprocessing. You could try an older Summicron 35 or 40 to get a more vintage fingerprint.

[glacierparkmagazine]

For that matter, what is "clinical?"

[Jeff S]

I own the 28 and 35 Summicron asph, as well as the 50 Summilux asph, and all are fully capable of helping to render a wonderful print (as are many other lenses), if all the other many variables are controlled and well executed. The camera and lens play a part, of course, but not nearly as much as many think. You are talking about prints, right?

 

Jeff

[arthury]

Not sure what you exactly mean by looking digital ...

 

Me, too. Living in the 21st century, I am not sure what you mean by it looking digital.

 

I just happened to take my 35mm cron ASPH out tonight with my M9 and I love its effects ... this lens has such impressive corrections. Take a look at the point light source near the edge of the first image ... they are all close to round.

 

 

 

[fWord]

Ironically it's the 'critical' or 'clinical' nature of today's lenses that determines their premium pricing. They're contrasty lens with very high resolving power. That's great!

 

IMHO, if we don't like the look, it's possible to dial back the sharpness and saturation a little. In Adobe Lightroom I even experimented with some settings that reduced saturation, contrast and increased the exposure slightly (this itself can reduce perceived colour saturation to a certain extent) while dialing in NO sharpening to create an image that looked more 'vintage'. Worked well for me with the 35 Summicron ASPH on an M8.

 

Personally I think that the photographer should use the most 'critical' lens they can afford, in the focal length of their choice, and then achieve their 'vision' by means of some quick post-processing.

 

Of course, if you prefer images that are generally softer and with some form of veiling glare, skip straight to the vintage lenses, save a few quid in the process and knock off some time from post-processing.

[lct]

Try the 35mm Skopar

James, how do you rate its bokeh?

[sblitz]

thank you all for your comments ..... they are interesting to read in that so many thread on this forum discuss one lens's fingerprint vs another and here the overwhelming response has been to fix it in pp. perhaps larry's point is the best for me -- better to degrade than have nothing to upgrade to. nevertheless, when i bring up the photo the first look to me is far less satisfying than the 50mm summliux and i would like the look to be closer.

[wattsy]

I'll go against the grain slightly and state that I know where the OP is coming from. I can't be bothered to go into detail (these kind of preferences are personal and not worth pontificating about) but, as superb as it is so many ways, I tend to view the 35 Summicron ASPH as a lens more suited to film. For digital I prefer the Summilux.

[wattsy]

Personally I think that the photographer should use the most 'critical' lens they can afford, in the focal length of their choice, and then achieve their 'vision' by means of some quick post-processing.

 

A depressing thought.

[Overgaard]

The summicron ASPH f/2.0 has a hard contrast compared to other lenses, and the dark shadows are not as airy and detailed as with the 50mm Summilux ASPH (and the new 35mm Summilux ASPH).

 

But I wonder both from which lens you came from, and if you are using the standard settings on for example Lightroom. At least it shouldn't be more sharpened than the standard sharpening Lightroom offer by default (and Capture One is per default sharpening too much for this lens). Just a thought.

 

You can lighten the contrast and get back details in the dark areas with the lightness ruler in Lightroom.

 

Finally, I would say that the old lenses, the new non-ASPH and the new ASPH lenses each fall in their own category in terms of contrast and sharpness why they require different workflow in Lightroom.

 

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Sites - Leica 35mm Summicron-M f/2.0 rangefinder lens

[gjames9142]

Although not particularly clearly enunciated, the original post raises an interesting question about the digital realm. There are people who think that the purpose of an M9 with an expensive aspherical lens is to look exactly like film. I have long since come to realize that every technology has its own aesthetic and look. Digital is never going to replicate film, but it has its own qualities and pleasures. I have only had an M9 -- my first digital camera-- for under two years, and I have only made about 1,000 prints on my more recently bought Epson 4900.But I have reached a few tentative conclusions. The medium can be brilliant at describing surfaces. It has much more of a problem with transitions, edges and highlights. I have several prints of architectural facades that will stand happily against a 20x24 inch print from an 8x10 negative. Light is critical -- I have made a couple of trips from Toronto to San Francisco in the last two winters, and the light of Northern California in winter seems perfectly suited to the camera's sensor, and the lenses I use -- a V4 35 Cron and a V4 28 Elmarit. (I have just cancelled an order for a 35 2.8 Biogon, probably a better technical performer than the latest 35 Cron because a) there are'nt any available (and Zeiss prevaricates just as badly as Leitz) and I have come to the conclusion that the last thing I need is something with more local contrast. Leica lent me an S1 for a week, and when I got around to printing from its files, I realized I preferred the look of the M9. I am still not sure whether the M9 really works as a landscape camera for me. The S2 has phenomenal resolution, but sometimes it starts to look too sharp to me --- brittle as in early duotone printing, or a CD trying to deal with a string quartet. I don't know if this makes any sense, but I am totally enjoying the experience and realize I have a lot to learn, especially the finer points of printing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[fotoism]

As many have already pointed out, the more recent ASPH lenses excel in higher contrast and therefore often labelled as "clinical".

 

If you like the FOV of 35mm then why not try an earlier version of 35 Lux and play with the aperture? When it's wide open it has this glow around the highlights and the image is much softer, but when you close it down to 5.6 it can be very sharp and clean. I have a version 1 and I just love it.