a 35mm lens?

[jlindstrom]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Once again turn to ask help from the forum..

 

I've grown to like the 35mm fov recently. I have the Zeiss 35/2 biogon, which is a quite nice lens for sure. Most of the time I like it... But, I recently got the last 90/2.8 Leica lens, which is pure magic in it's rendition. Copared to that, the drawing of the zeiss is.. hmm.. "cartoonish". I think that's the best I can describe it, lacking more proper words for it.

Anyway, is there a 35mm lens out there with a renders/draws similar to the 90 elmarit I have?

 

--Juha

[lct]

Hard to reach the level of the Elmarit 90/2.8 (# 11807, 11808, 11899). Both my Summicron 35/2 asph and Summarit 35/2.5 match it well with a sometimes harsher bokeh for the Summicron and softer corners at fast apertures for the Summarit.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[viramati]

not sure how a 35mm and 90mm lens could render in same way but maybe I am missing something

[jlindstrom]

not sure how a 35mm and 90mm lens could render in same way but maybe I am missing something

 

Field of view and dof etc are naturally different. But certain clarity, crispness of lines, colors, contrast, handling of highlights/shadows, shade transfers etc could be similar charasteristics yes? As a widely used example, Mandlers designed lenses have many similarities as opposed to qualities of lenses designed by Karbe.

 

--Juha

[Rick]

You sound like you should just buy the Summilux FLE 11663 and be done with it.

[proy]

You sound like you should just buy the Summilux FLE 11663 and be done with it.

 

+1

[skinnfell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe I am generalizing here but I get the understanding that each "generation" of lenses draw similarly.

 

Here are my feeble attempt at generalizing (based on lenses I have owned or tried), sorry if i offend someone:

 

50s-60s (designer?) = very high detail sharpness, but very low contrast. Excellent color. Flares terribly. Dreamy bokeh.

Signture lens: 50 cron v2?

 

70s-80s (mr. mandler?) = much higher contrast at the cost of corner sharpness. Good but not excellent color. Flares occur but rarely. Sometimes funny bokeh.

Signature lens: 75/1.4?

 

90s-today (mr. karbe?) = Very high sharpness even into corners, excellent contrast, hardly ever flares, but can look clinical. Very clean bokeh.

Signature lens: Apo50/2?

 

 

The elmarit belongs to the middle to latter group here. So perhaps looking for a lens designed in the same age or by the same designer will look similar.

I have tried it, and also extensively used both 35/2 "king of bokeh" as well as the current asph. As others have said, these are very good but not quite up to the elmarit.

 

I haven't tried it but it seems you have develeped a thirst that only the 35 Lux FLE will quench.

That's life as a Leicaphiliac...

Edited August 23, 2012 by skinnfell

[earleygallery]

I suspect the OP is seeing more contrast from his Zeiss lens. A Summarit, older Summicron or Summaron may be the answer he's looking for.

[lct]

I don't think so as the last Elmarit 90 is much contrasty. What the OP's seing is perhaps the fast transition between in and out of focus areas coming from Zeiss lenses and giving the feeling that some subject matters are sharper but also "thinner" than those shot with Leica lenses. Pure speculation from my part though.

[philipus]

You sound like you should just buy the Summilux FLE 11663 and be done with it.

 

I would rather have thought Juha should buy the Summicron III or IV. Still, I must admit that I find the Elmarit-M somewhat similar in rendition to my 50 Asph.

[Bill W]

You sound like you should just buy the Summilux FLE 11663 and be done with it.

 

I just ordered one from Popflash after a 2+ year wait. There seem to be a few new lens reaching the USA recently. I probably did not need this since I have a 35 lux which I now must sell as well as something else to offset the financial impact.

[Printmaker]

I use a 35 Summicron M (version IV) with a 90 Elmarit M. Both lenses date from the early 90s and both were made in Germany. The color and rendering of this pair is about as perfect as can be. Yes, the latest ASPH 35 Summicron is sharper and has better micro contrast at the edges of the frame when the lens is wide open, but I could care less. The version IV is smaller and (I feel) has more character.

 

I've owned and used Zeiss lenses and know exactly what you mean. They have a look which can be nice, but the Zeiss lenses render differently than Leica glass. I like the look of Leica lenses better - especially the M lenses made in the 90s.

[algrove]

Juha, If you like the 11807 90mm which is a Mandler lens, then I'd stick with Mandler designed lenses.

[IWC Doppel]

I have the 90 Elmarit-M and agree with the view on the rendering beng very nice indeed. It has a softness and smooth graduation that is very different to more modern lenses, I sold my 75 Summarit as I was not that keen on the look.

 

Regarding 35's my limited experience encompasses the MkIV, and ASPH Summicrons and all of thee aspherical Summiluxes, 11873,11874 and 11663. I have recently bought an f2.8 Summaron

 

Of the ones I know well, I'd day the 11874 is the closest, the mkIV stopped down a little is also similar, at say f4.0

 

I would also say the style of the Summaron has similarities, and has a very classic rendering style. The other 35 well worth a look is the First version, 8 element Simmicron, from the imagaes I have seen this looks perhaps the best fit.

 

One question is what is it about the 90 you like and want to replicate ? My favourite 35 is the 11873 Aspherical it is similar to the 11874 but has a little more movement and 'glow' but is a fraction sharper and has a real depth to the image.

[gjames9142]

I am completely happy with the version 4 cron, but this may be because I shoot almost exclusively at optimum aperture-- 5.6 and 8. I have never quite understood the bokeh thing, which usually means a snap of one's spouse or pet with an out- of- focus background which then becomes a source of endless fine distinctions about said background.

[TomB_tx]

For a really classic look, how about a 3.5 Summaron? Very tiny - yet easy to use. I used to use this ltm version on a IIIf in the army about 1970. It still works amazingly well on the M9. Here's a 100% crop simply exported as jpg from LR3, no manipulation. Wide open at 3.5

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[payasam]

I have a C-V 35mm, a Hexanon 50mm and an Elmarit 90mm. I am satisfied with the results I get and have never tried to compare the "look" of the three. This is because, to me, the content of a photo is important while its appearance is of little consequence.

[jlindstrom]

Paysam: content naturally is key. Good content makes up a lot for technical weakness. Maybe I'm overanalyzing, but actually the things with this 35 can at times get distracting, which then has bad effect on the content.

 

As for the real content part, I'm still practising. But I like to think I'm getting better.. I'd show more of them for the public, but most only have meaning for me & family :-)

 

--Juha

[Printmaker]

Yes, content is important. But it is nice when you have a matched set of tools. When all of your lenses produce a certain look, you can switch back and forth without fear of color shifts or changes in contrast. With a matched set of lenses your tools become invisible and your talent becomes your style.

 

Yes, some people can not tell the difference. Others might choose a certain lens for its look, for example, an architectural photographer may want a 21 Biogon for its crisp rendering and the way it captures the blue in the sky. Still others might want a 50 Sonnar for its soft rendering when used wide open. But I feel that it is more important to know that my 35/50/90 lenses will all perform as expected and that in a pile of prints one does look out of place due to the lens used.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[payasam]

Perform as expected does not have to mean perform in the same way as the other lenses. Second, no print in a pile is likely to "look out of place due to the lens used" because all good lens makers try to produce lenses whose rendering is faithful to reality, as a result of which none is wildly different. A photograph is more often seen by itself than as part of a set. Thus it is that photos with very different colour balance, for example, can each seem acceptable when not compared with one another.