What do you trade off to gain speed?

[Your Old Dog]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I AM NOT A TROLL

 

I still have a few more lenses I'd like to consider for my new M9. Being new to Leica (read recently came into some money!) I am still trying to figure how all this works.

 

I am of the belief that in physics you never get something for nothing. There is always a price to pay for any new benefit you get. If you opt for a lens speed of f1 over f3.5, what are you trading off for the gain? Is it contrast, sharpness, bouquet, look as difference between soft glamor images or stark technical images.

 

I am seeking optics that will produce fine B&W images with some contrast and full range of tones. Am I going to find that most of those qualities come from the post processing or can I rely on one speed of lens over another to help me along the way. Money is not a particular issue here at this time.

 

Thanks and everybody play nice please

 

Ray............

[jaapv]

"t aint that simple - basically with each stop wider the aberrations will increase a magnitude and the lens will get heavier and bigger exponentially. However, with knowledge, both optical and mechanical, and many special glass types,Leica can design lenses that offset those disadvantages. Often a faster lens will be as good or even better stopped down to the same speed as the slower lens, the dimensions will be kept in check, and you will get optical miracles like the Summilux 50 asph or the Noctilux 0.95. The only real tradeoff is the resultant thinness of your wallet, as these things come at a price.

In your case, you will need to do quite a bit of reading, as each and every Leica lens ever built is at least excellent, often stunning, but comes with its own unique way of drawing. What lens you choose depends on your wishes for the image - and only you can decide. Postprocessing is all fine and dandy, but the basic image will still be coming from the lens. Oh - and there is no direct relationship between lens speed and image quality....

[Your Old Dog]

Thanks Jaapv, I appreciate your taking the time. I knew that speed had a somewhat direct relationship to the size and weight of a lens. Your following though:

 

 

Is a bit of a surprise for me. I always thought that focal length the same, the slower lens would be not only easier to manufacture but more forgiving and hence sharper images.

 

If I have it right, the hallmark of a Leica fast lens is that they are manufactured to be at their pest wide open? Is that about right?

 

thanks,

Ray........

[aymoon]

What do you trade off? With new Leica lenses (which I assume you'd get seeing as money isn't an issue), it will come down to physical size of the lens and money, and that's about it.

 

It will 'draw' differently, yes. BUT, if you're looking for sharpness and contrast, you won't lose anything imo with eg. 35lux or 50lux over 'crons or 'rits (from my experience... I haven't tried the 21/24luxes). If anything, I'd say they offer higher contrast, and they are as sharp as you can get. Once you start to stop-down, everything pretty much evens out. Wide-open, they perform superbly.

 

Again, size and money make the difference...

 

"That's what she said!"

[wildlightphoto]

Is a bit of a surprise for me. I always thought that focal length the same, the slower lens would be not only easier to manufacture but more forgiving and hence sharper images.

 

In theory, for slower and faster lenses of a similar generation and technology this may be true, however often (not always) a slower lens is an older design and does not benefit from newer manufacturing techniques or optical calculations. Better to compare specific models than to rely on theory.

[Jeff S]

Better to compare specific models than to rely on theory.

 

+1

 

And, many differences cited in reviews (especially when comparing recent Leica glass) are often more theoretical than practical when one looks to the final print as the barometer.

 

Jeff

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I have it right, the hallmark of a Leica fast lens is that they are manufactured to be at their best wide open? Is that about right?

 

No. All the lenses improve by being stopped down a bit, but not too far. The middle aperture is a good rule-of-thumb for best. (At about 6mm, diffraction becomes significant).

[giordano]

If I have it right, the hallmark of a Leica fast lens is that they are manufactured to be at their pest wide open? Is that about right?

 

Almost. Leica seem to be aiming for lenses that are equally good at all apertures (setting aside the diffraction effects that are unavoidable at small f-stops). Certainly they put more emphasis on wide-open performance than any of their competitors.

[Your Old Dog]

..................................... Certainly they put more emphasis on wide-open performance than any of their competitors.

 

Yes Giordano, that's what I was getting at when I said:

 

Originally Posted by Your Old Dog

If I have it right, the hallmark of a Leica fast lens is that they are manufactured to be at their best wide open? Is that about right? It may be that I am not expressing myself properly and for that I apologize.

 

The way I'm looking at it is this, you pay a small fortune for a Leica lens and in general, the best thing you get for your money is far better quality at wide open apertures when compared to most other photographers. Most other lenses I've used required you to stay away from the extreme ends of the aperture. I don't think you could see much difference between a cheap Nikor 50mm f1.8 when stopped down to between f5.6 or f8 or a $5,0000 50mm f1.2 Leica lens? However I would expect Leica's 50 1.4 to deliver a better image then a Nikor 50mm 1.4 when both lenses are shot wide open.

 

I'm not convinced that a 50mm 1.2 lens will equal 50mm 2.8 lens with respect to contrast and or sharpness.

 

Comparing two different optics would require more money then I'd care to put into it. While money isn't an issue, there's a reason for that! I don't squander it

 

Thanks all for your insight.

[thompsonkirk]

I suggest you subscribe to http://www.reidreviews.com, where Sean Reid offers detailed & illustrated reviews of lenses for Leica. He'll supply much of the info you want & can save you a lot of $.

 

He can show you which lenses resolve well on center/in the corners, which suffer focus shift, how they compare in flare, CA, & contrast, & which of the less expensive lenses are better than you'd expect. He also illustrates the bokeh of the lenses, but doesn't make recommendations about this – too much a matter of taste.

 

One thing he doesn't cover is the virtue of many older lenses – check out the ones under 'Walter Mandler' in the Wikipedia. These are often favored, especially for BW.

 

Kirk

[lars_bergquist]

Any current or recent lens in "the Holy Trinity" – 35, 50 and 90mm – will serve you well. If the field of view doesn't suit you, well then you can recoup most of the price if you decide to change. Avoid extremes for the time being. Buy one or at most two lenses. Learn to know your kit thoroughly, before you decide to expand it – if at all.

 

But I suspect that your previous camera was not a rangefinder. If so, then there is an entirely different "photographic lifestyle" to make your own. The SLR owner raises the camera to his eye and starts looking for the Picture, by working the zoom. Maybe he does find it. The RF photog wades in with an appropriate lens already mounted (no zooms, hooray!). He/she sees the Picture already before raising the camera, because he/she already has the bright frame lines up before his inner eye. Focus (starting always from infinity!), adjust composition, bang. It's a different mentality. This is more basic, and important, than exactly which lens you buy.

 

Things have been written about this, but not enough. People emphasise gear too much. Pictures are taken by photographers, not by cameras or lenses. These exist only to permit the photographer to make, and to effect, the vital decisions. The unique virtue of the Leica M is that these cameras permit the photographer to realise these decisions quickly, without hassle, and in a superlative way.

 

Many happy days in your new photographic life!

 

The old man from the Age of the Screw Mount

[jaapv]

Comparing two different optics would require more money then I'd care to put into it. While money isn't an issue, there's a reason for that! I don't squander it

 

.

Well, let's take for instance the Summilux 50 asph and the Elmar-M 2.8/50.

The first arguably the best 50 mm lens ever built, the other a 1996 recalculation of a lens from the late 1920-ies. Which one is better? The answer is a surprising: both.

Whilst the Summilux will deliver pure magic at wide apertures and astounding resolution stopped down, the little Elmar is as interesting and good in its own aperture range, sharp, contrasty, yet with a distinct "vintage"look.

[Jeff S]

 

... The SLR owner raises the camera to his eye and starts looking for the Picture, by working the zoom. Maybe he does find it. The RF photog wades in with an appropriate lens already mounted (no zooms, hooray!). He/she sees the Picture already before raising the camera, because he/she already has the bright frame lines up before his inner eye.

 

...People emphasise gear too much. Pictures are taken by photographers, not by cameras or lenses.

 

As a semi-old man myself, Lars, I respect your generally wise comments. In this case, I totally agree with your second (excerpted) paragraph above and, for that reason, think you generalize too much in the first.

 

Over 40 years ago, I started using large format cameras in addition to SLRs. And, for the last 25 years, mostly rangefinders. My goal has been to find pictures in my head, then attempt to capture them with the equipment on hand. Often, this requires choosing a different lens. This is true with all my gear, including rangefinders, and is why I, like many rangefinder users, sometimes have 2 M cameras with lenses mounted in order to quickly capture the scene.

 

While many SLR users unfortunately follow your above prescription, many are real photographers who still look to find images in their head before raising the camera to their eye. And, many of them use primes, not zooms. But even with a zoom, an image can be seen in advance, and the trained photographer can quickly adjust the focal length to capture the pre-visualized image.

 

As you say, it's the photographer, not the gear. So, I think it's best not to correlate SLR use with an inability to see pictures in advance. That's the photographer's problem, not the camera's.

 

Back on topic, I fully agree with your recommendations to the OP.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

Jeff, I bought my first SLR camera (an Edixa) in 1959 ... And yes, with prime lenses (which was all we had for a very long time) some of us did learn to pre-visualise the picture. Some did not need to, because a 50mm lens was all their expensive "system camera" ever got. This was actually so in most cases.

 

But give a beginner a SLR with a zoom, and what does he learn? If he does learn, he's exceptional, because his equipment does certainly not encourage him to grow in that direction.

 

Since the 1950's, I have used most camera types that exist. Most of them have had their distinctive advantages (and I also have to confess to a possibly irrational love of Rolleiflex TLR cameras ...) But for what I might call "interactive photography", the kind where you are part of the action, nothing beats the Leica M.

 

And before zooms, we zoomed with our feet.

 

The old man from the Age of the Box Camera

[bill]

But give a beginner a SLR with a zoom, and what does he learn? If he does learn, he's exceptional, because his equipment does certainly not encourage him to grow in that direction.

 

I can only speak to my own experience.

 

My first SLR was a secondhand Pentax ME Super with a 50mm lens. I felt very restricted by this, and rapidly bought a couple of zooms (35-70 and 70-210). I then realised that I was using them constantly at the extremes - 35 - SLAM! - 70 and back again. The ability to precisely frame, in theory a zoom lens' strength, never came into play. I rapidly became disillusioned, and ended up with a 24mm wideangle, the 50, a 135 and a 300. I used various SLRs after that first one, including Contax and Nikon, and DSLRs from Olympus. I have always had a mix of zooms and primes. Lenses don't teach you anything - taking photos and listening to feedback does.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[adan]

Ray, there is an old axiom from the service industries that applies to lens design (as well as a great many other things in life) - "You can have good, you can have fast, and you can have cheap - pick any two."

 

"Fast" can mean a lens aperture as well as speed of service - so if you (or the manufacturer) are willing to pay the tab, you can indeed get a fast lens that is also as good or better than a slower lens of the same focal length (assuming for the moment that contrastier and sharper are what we mean by "good or better" - not everyone uses that standard, though).

 

For example, Leica puts an ASPH surface and floating elements into their 50 f/1.4 lens, and not into their 50 f/2. And by doing so does get "better" performance out of the faster lens - for a price.

 

Put another way, yes there will always be tradeoffs, but they may involve things outside of raw optical performance and the laws of physics - such as size, weight, price.

 

Or ttl viewing, as another factor. The laws of physics are always going to make it harder to build good lenses below the 50mm focal length for SLRs. Something has to give in the optical design to make room for the swinging mirror.

 

If you want to compare various Leica lenses without buying them, Leica does publish MTF charts for all their current designs on their web site: Leica Camera AG - Photography - Lenses

 

Just click on the lens in question and then click on the "Technical Data" download button.

[Jeff S]

Lars, no debate on your follow-up comments. And, I agree with Bill's point about learning.

 

My only issue was the initial blanket statement about SLR versus RF users, i.e., that the former are universally zoom users, seemingly lucky to find a shot. I didn't take this as a commentary on the best way to learn (although you perhaps intended it that way). That's a longer discussion.

 

Conversely, some RF users (myself included) use the RF on occasion for more contemplative work, e.g,. landscape (including smaller urban 'landscape'). While this might not be the ideal tool for the job, it beats lugging around a 4x5 or an SLR with tilt/shift lenses. And, it works, if I do my job right.

 

Guess I see things more in shades of grey, rather than as black or white issues. Hope that's an asset in my b/w work.

 

Jeff

[lars_bergquist]

Jeff, I'm not a fanatic – or, I hope, a pedant (often the same thing). All camera types but the simplest have their natural niche. And that of the M is certainly street or people photography.

 

But that does not mean it can't be used for other things. The M9 has definitely broken out of the traditional 35mm niche. I can do things with it that I couldn't do with 6x9cm. If I do my bit, a M9 file has a depth of detail, a definition and a smoothness that is breathtaking. And sometimes I'm in that mood.

 

As usual, the proof of the pudding is in the viewing ...

 

The gnarly old man