Does the Leica lens look appear most at a certain focal length?

[otto.f]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quite contradictory what you say there; there is no look but you define it later on mentioning your M240, stating that you can't find it in other brands.. You lost me here

Nevertheless, it is very clear to me that the special character of Leica was in the film days much more pronounced than in the digital era

[zlatkob]

In my view at least the following lenses define the "Leica look", in random sequence (this means at least that there is no such thing in the same focal distance in other brands)

APO 180/3.4 for R

Elmarit 135 R

Macro-Elmarit 60 R

Summilux 80 R, Summilux 75 M

Noctilux 0.95 M

Summicron 35, IV M and its R sister

Summilux 35 aspherical, asph, probably

Summicron 90 apo asph and probably the pre-asph also

Summicron 28 asph, both 'old' and new

APO Macro Elmarit 100 R, although the Zeiss/Contax version comes very close

APO-Elmarit 180 R

Elmarit 24, probably, although Zeiss/Contax's 25mm is astounding too

This is mostly about smooth bo-keh, typical nice transitions from focus to out-of-focus, sometimes about excellent sharpness/MTF-curves, and sometimes about unique flare-resistance. 

 

During summing up, I see that there is no 50. This is probably because Zeiss, Nikon and Canon made beautiful 50s too.

 

 

No 50?  But there is one 50 on your list.

[Advertisement]

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

[otto.f]

Oh yes!, haha, didn't think of Noctilux as a 50, it seems an absolute lens for me

[Exodies]

This would be a project for IBM's Watson computer. Show it a few million Leica film and digital, normal and colourless pictures and a similar number of pictures taken with other equipment and ask it whether it could identify which group a test photograph belongs to.

[otto.f]

Leica users with experience from 1970 and further then, with experience with Canon or Nikon lenses too.

 

But you know, I doubt whether this would convince me. We have in our country a music program where various interpretations of classical music are compared with a panel of highly experienced musicians or musicologists. It happens sometimes that panel-members do not even recognize Jascha Heifetz out of three violinists, which is a complete puzzle for me. 

If you want to define quality by some democratic procedure I'm afraid you end up with some average non-descript entity. People are not equal, neither in eyes, ears and other senses. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by otto.f

[pgk]

This would be a project for IBM's Watson computer. Show it a few million Leica film and digital, normal and colourless pictures and a similar number of pictures taken with other equipment and ask it whether it could identify which group a test photograph belongs to.

 

Personally I am aware that certain lenses have a specific 'look' - the f/1 Noctilux and 35mm pre-aspheric Summilux showing their 'flaws' wide open, or the 21mm f/3.4 Super-Angulon with its high central resolution and fall-off in resolution/vignetting towards the corners are prime examples. I suspect that there has been some degree of misinterpretation as to whether such lenses exhibit a 'Leica look' or are actually 'characterful' lenses in their own right (my view - 'flaws' have appeal as also do state-of-the-art current immaculate designs). But scribing a Leica look to every lens/camera from these is rather disingenuous IMO. I would add that if you are familiar with lenses and their 'characteristics' it is possible to 'see' these, but for most viewers it probably is not. although 'observant' viewers may well pick up on nuances despite being unable to ascribe them to their cause.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So what common 'Leica look' does a 5cm Summar and an APO Summicron share? To me the results they give look polar opposites.

[otto.f]

I think it would be reasonable to compare Leica lenses to other brands within the same generations, like sixties, seventies, eighties, etc.

[vhfreund]

I frequently asked myself the question where the look comes from. Since many years I use different systems, e.g. Hasselblad, Nikon and Leica. IMO the difference doesn't come from the glass but rather from the different perspective of the photographer. The different look of the Hasselblad pictures is very obvious because of the low eye point. I think the rangefinder view and feel is way different from the SLR view and the photographer approaches his subjects in a different way. In sum the different view and the different feel make the difference, not the lenses.

 

Theodor

[pgk]

So what common 'Leica look' does a 5cm Summar and an APO Summicron share? To me the results they give look polar opposites.

 

Absolutely, but the fact that you can ascribe both a name and a 'look' to them makes them stand out - the 'look' itself is anything but consistent. And the newer Karbe lenses have a 'clinical' 'look'  as they are extremely 'good' designs. Its all part of the 'lore' isn't it - logic and consistency are of little importance here.

[ECohen]

Quite contradictory what you say there; there is no look but you define it later on mentioning your M240, stating that you can't find it in other brands.. You lost me here

Nevertheless, it is very clear to me that the special character of Leica was in the film days much more pronounced than in the digital era

 

I don't think "the look" is  intentional As in a meeting at Leica to define the characteristics that is Leica...before tweaking the sensor.

I do define it in my 240 with the lenses I have, because its different than the characteristics in my current Nikon which has  an inconsistent look from lens to lens ....still nice IQ but leaning toward neutral....... by my definition neutral is no "look" at all...also the fact that with Nikon its inconsistent from lens to lens

 

To change the subject slightly ....Was it an accident that in View Camera lenses of the 1980s, German lenses were all  "warm" quality" compared to Japanese lenses were "cooler" and more Magenta?

German vs Japanese .....warm vs cool ....that's a look.....isn't it?

 

I don't think its exclusive to film.........lt's lens design/ the manufacturing process/ coatings....and

....In the case of film ,how the contrast and warmth interacted with choice of film .

...in the case of today's digital its how the sensor firmware is adjusted?....I think?

 

I can also see how different cameras.... rangefinder vs view camera or twin lens, you tend to make different pictures ....but I don't think that....that  "look" is created by a camera manufacture its more of a style.....and photographers choice.

 

 

apples to apples

50mm on my Nikon, the photo/file looks different than 50mm on my M240....to me because of sharpness, contrast and warmth .......... it "looks" more pleasing to me.

 

That said a few tweaks on LR and the looks feel similar enough that I'm happy..

Like I said I'm new to leica and bought it for simplicity, any kind of special look is a bonus.

 

Talk about a subjective topic....this is it!!!

 

 

[otto.f]

So you have several arguments here to say that some sort of look exists, which you denied earlier. 

But if you are relatively new with Leica I can understand your wanderings. In the digital era very little is left of the once for me very  obvious hallmark of Leica lenses, as you describe here.

There are also big differences between the M240 look and the M9 look, which I couldn't share under: both typical  Leica.

[ECohen]

So you have several arguments here to say that some sort of look exists, which you denied earlier. 

But if you are relatively new with Leica I can understand your wanderings. In the digital era very little is left of the once for me very  obvious hallmark of Leica lenses, as you describe here.

There are also big differences between the M240 look and the M9 look, which I couldn't share under: both typical  Leica.

 

So you dont see the difference in camera brands....because of digital......or the nostalgic look of old Leica is gone for you?

 

For me there is a  difference between the  qualities  of say Nikon and the qualities in my Leica 240 and it's current lenses......that I prefer....and that I have pointed out to you

And thanks for  welcome....by looking down on my inexprence with this brand?.......Now there  is a Leica look,not to be proud of.

[IWC Doppel]

One thing I feel that Leica has never lost is the human compromise choice something that I fear too many designs have left too much to computers with lens and camera product design

[otto.f]

So you dont see the difference in camera brands....because of digital......or the nostalgic look of old Leica is gone for you?

 

For me there is a  difference between the  qualities  of say Nikon and the qualities in my Leica 240 and it's current lenses......that I prefer....and that I have pointed out to you

And thanks for  welcome....by looking down on my inexprence with this brand?.......Now there  is a Leica look,not to be proud of.

 

Experience is a matter of fact, whether a Leica look exists or not is a judgement, and I would like judgements to be based on experience, that's all

[roelandinho]

The Leica lenses that I use myself are all relatively recent and they do have a common "look", though probably quite different from older generation lenses.

 

The modern lenses (that I've tried or seen results of) are all high contrast, extremely sharp at the focal plane and with a very fast and clean transition to out-of-focus. Sometimes subjects look like they were pasted in via photoshop. Also, they all seem to give me similar color tones, but I guess that has probably more to do with the sensor?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[otto.f]

Just the fact that Leica strives to have the highest performance with the lens wide open, which is often successful, distinguishes it from other brands, where not seldom the quality arrives after three stops

[ECohen]

Experience is a matter of fact, whether a Leica look exists or not is a judgement, and I would like judgements to be based on experience, that's all

 

Seriously aren't you being a little "Leica"snob to tell me to tell me my opinion and 40 years in photography doesn't count.....in judging to the qualities of my camera ?

Happily I leave this thread to you, your good judgement and bad manners.

[otto.f]

we were talking about lenses, isn't it

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Manoleica]

Lets be honest, with pre digital the camera/lens was a major part in the pursuit of an image, D&P was the next very important step.... Nowadays with digital even a $99 P&S with the use of PP can offer up a very mouthwatering image.. When paying Leica prices (cameras & or lenses-new or used) we need/want our results to "show" something..  Over the internet & on most Forums the images seen have been huffed & puffed in so many ways - who can really tell? - It could be that Leica users put more thought & care into producing an image! it could be just the light, the settings & that moment in time that offers the "Leica" look! - Apart from my M-P240/35mm Summicron ASPH all my other Leicas are terrific and at times produce the "Look".. The M-P & Lens combo takes care and experience to produce a "Good" image, to produce the "Look" takes experience, knowledge and so much more care etc..  even then is it really seeable?