pico Posted December 7, 2016 Share #1 Posted December 7, 2016 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I've been using Leica lenses since 1965 largely because Leica's lenses were the ultimate, the 'best', but time moves on and so does the interpretation of innovation for better or worse. I am no long anchored to innovation, best resolution, contrast or the APO, generation. I applaud Peter Karbe for his new lens designs that take design to the very maximum. His designs are inspiring - to designers. Whether they have aesthetic appeal is another matter to be determined over time. Somebody had to take lens to the ultimate, and Karbe has done it. But improved technology has nothing to do with aesthetics. . Edited December 7, 2016 by pico 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 7, 2016 Posted December 7, 2016 Hi pico, Take a look here Radical departure. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
michaelwj Posted December 7, 2016 Share #2 Posted December 7, 2016 Hi Pico, I understand your sentiment. I too prefer the look of the older lenses, they are also generally smaller (and more affordable), but I don't understand the title of the thread: "Radical Departure"? If anything, the progression towards lens perfection has been steady and inevitable, far from radical. Each successive generation has become technically better and aesthetically more sterile, but it has been an evolution, not a radical departure. Or is this a radical change in your thoughts? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted December 8, 2016 Share #3 Posted December 8, 2016 "Took lens to the ultimate"... allow me to question this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted December 8, 2016 Share #4 Posted December 8, 2016 "Took lens to the ultimate"... allow me to question this. Please do. (Not joking, actually please elaborate). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Lucan Posted December 8, 2016 Share #5 Posted December 8, 2016 Please do. (Not joking, actually please elaborate). Take it as a style of expression.Sometimes it means a lot and sometimes nothing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted December 8, 2016 Share #6 Posted December 8, 2016 I've been using Leica lenses since 1965 largely because Leica's lenses were the ultimate, the 'best', but time moves on and so does the interpretation of innovation for better or worse. I am no long anchored to innovation, best resolution, contrast or the APO, generation. I applaud Peter Karbe for his new lens designs that take design to the very maximum. His designs are inspiring - to designers. Whether they have aesthetic appeal is another matter to be determined over time. Somebody had to take lens to the ultimate, and Karbe has done it. But improved technology has nothing to do with aesthetics. . So you're departing for what, exactly? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted December 8, 2016 Share #7 Posted December 8, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is there any difference between using a lens for its quirks or aesthetic properties and using the same Instagram filter over and over? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckrider Posted December 8, 2016 Share #8 Posted December 8, 2016 .... I applaud Peter Karbe for his new lens designs that take design to the very maximum. His designs are inspiring - to designers...... ...But improved technology has nothing to do with aesthetics.... Leica and so Mr. Karbe have to deliver in economical and according to enviromental and other restrictions what "the market" asks for: economical: pressed instead of polished aspherics (note the price for the first 1.2 Nocti and first 35 Summilux aspherical!) envirometal: no lead and further toxic heavy metal are allowed to add to the glass-compostion any more (Hassi SWC Biogon had to be recalculated e.g. to avoid the additions, although I never threw my Biogons into normal waste basket....) Development in optics goes on and on: Leica's competitors are not sleeping, their quality is not that far from Leica optical performance and the distance shrinks. Producing older designs without any changing will cause economical death in overviewable period of time. So even if we elderly photographers don't agree in progress keeping our Mandlers (& Bereks) in high honour, times are changing. Thomas and YES: there is aesthetic property in some older lens: "Simpliness" of a 3 lens 15mm Hologon is not to overtower, Topogon excludet... But digital sensors do cause the need of new technology. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 8, 2016 Share #9 Posted December 8, 2016 .... But improved technology has nothing to do with aesthetics. .... I agree that the technology as such has nothing to do with aesthetics. However, the result of the applied technology - in this case a more naturalistic rendition of the image - is a decision in aesthetics. It can be seen as a move away from some kind of impressionism, dictated by flaws in the the imaging optic, towards a "new realism", once again. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelwj Posted December 8, 2016 Share #10 Posted December 8, 2016 Is there any difference between using a lens for its quirks or aesthetic properties and using the same Instagram filter over and over? No. All lenses have quirks and aesthetic properties, even the "transparent" APO ASPH 2/50. So if only using one lens is the same as applying the same filter over and over, then there is no difference. Generally a lenses quirks and aesthetic properties are a little more subtle than instagram filters... Is using the same lens over and over a good or bad thing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted December 8, 2016 Share #11 Posted December 8, 2016 Is using the same lens over and over a good or bad thing? In the case of my Fuji GW690II it is a very good thing... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 8, 2016 Share #12 Posted December 8, 2016 Always using the same lens is like drinking the same wine to me. Sometimes i need objectivity, sometimes subjectivity, sometimes both. Great to have Mandler, pre-Mandler and Karbe lenses for that. Great also to have non Leica glass like ZM or CV. We are just spoilt for choice if you ask me. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 8, 2016 Share #13 Posted December 8, 2016 But improved technology has nothing to do with aesthetics. I would disagree with the caveat that it depends on the subject matter entirely. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted December 8, 2016 Share #14 Posted December 8, 2016 And I should add, the photographer and his/her ability to use it appropriately on the subject matter. I've actually given this topic some thought lately as I have been looking at a (very) few images which I would say are accentuated by current or Karbe designed lenses (21 SEM, 35 aspheric pre-FLE & 75/2) because they are of 'modern' subject matter which works well with the precise way these modern lenses operate. But such photographs are few and far between (I can think of 3 out of 50k perhaps, but there may be a few more - not a high percentage at all). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kivis Posted December 11, 2016 Share #15 Posted December 11, 2016 Just want to know: Can I keep my LUX 50 E43? Please? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 11, 2016 Share #16 Posted December 11, 2016 If it is a black paint 11113 yes Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kivis Posted December 11, 2016 Share #17 Posted December 11, 2016 If it is a black paint 11113 yes yes sir Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted December 11, 2016 Share #18 Posted December 11, 2016 (edited) Always using the same lens is like drinking the same wine to me.Analogous to driving a high-performance car, there's also an argument to be made for first mastering the intricacies of the device you have in hand. You may not need to look further. Edited December 11, 2016 by james.liam 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 11, 2016 Share #19 Posted December 11, 2016 Been there my friend. Got my first Leica lens in 1971. A superb 50/2 v3 that i did not keep unfortunately. Since then i have never sold a Leica lens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 11, 2016 Author Share #20 Posted December 11, 2016 Is there any difference between using a lens for its quirks or aesthetic properties and using the same Instagram filter over and over? Of course there is a difference. A lens renders differently depending upon f-stop and subject distance. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.