250swb Posted January 19, 2011 Share #41 Posted January 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) People simply (and ridiculously) tend to praise what they own as being the best there is. Like when one asks "Which 50mm is best", the answers include pathetic answers such as canon 50 1.8, lux pre-ashp, lux asph, summarit, planar, "why don't you try a 40mm Voigtlander", "Best bang for the buck" and so on. People simply recommend what they own, even if it's junk and they try to pass it as the Best 50mm lens, regardless of what the best really is. If they don't own it, they won't recommend it. That is the internet: The worst communication tool ever for those who don't use their critical minds to separate the logical from the bull. It is true, recommendations are nearly always based on what people own, and if you have any experience a photographer should be able to separate what they own from what they know. I don't own a 50mm Summilux, but I know it has what people call 'creamy bokeh'. So if thats what they want, that should be the recommendation. I put in my Summitar image because it goes against the grain. In other circumstances, say shooting a situation of heightened emotion like a street demonstration, why would you want a creamy smooth bokeh? It hardly adds that subliminal touch in which the photographer has total control over the rendering of the image. An edgey bokeh surely adds more to the situation than creamy smooth, even if it is only a minor aspect of the image? Equally a Summitar's bokeh can add a painterly effect as opposed to a purely photographic effect from a Summilux. So it has its place in other aspects of photography. This works with all lenses, there is a niche out there where the rendering fits perfectly. It may be ugly, but if ugly is needed to complete the ambience of the image, why don't photographers employ it when the imaginary perfection of 'creamy smooth' would neutralize any emotion? Perfection in terms of lens design is only an aim of the technical specification, not the end use. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2011 Posted January 19, 2011 Hi 250swb, Take a look here Your best and worst lens (OOF discussion only). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
christakis Posted January 19, 2011 Share #42 Posted January 19, 2011 Well, this is a strictly subjective theme, be sure to understand this before you go on reading. The only two lenses I own are in your 5 worst list yet I'm over the moon with them. Perhaps because I haven't tried other lenses extensively except a 28mm Elmarit (which hardly had any OOF areas anyway), perhaps because I did not actively look into other lenses OOF rendering. Another poster, put my lenses in his top 5, which confirms that this is definitely a subjective theme. Sometimes, especially for Leica lenses, ignorance is a bliss. And, I'm one of the few who like the OOF rendering of the 35mm Summilux ASPH. If I could buy it, I would. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPH1962 Posted January 19, 2011 Share #43 Posted January 19, 2011 interesting reading the various opinions and feeling about the leica glas - below is my list for usage on M9 and M4-P & 6 - more than enough pics takenwith all of them. Best: 28 2.8 Elmarit 3rd version (magic for black&white, handles very well) 35 Lux pre-asph titanium (from 1.4 to 2.8 it has a very special look) 35 Lux FLE (fits always... very predictable, no problem with bokeh) 50 Summicron IV (fits always... very predictable, handles perfectly) 75 Lux (at close distance @1.4 or 2.0 it's magic) Neutral: 24 Lux 50 Nokton 1.1 90 Summicron pre-asph 90 Tele-Elmarit 135 Elmar Worst: 35 summicron IV (focus shift on M9, unusable) 50 Lux E43 (have two, none gives good results) 50 CV Nokton 1.5 (focus shift, bokeh) 90 Elmarit (the older silver one) 135 Elmarit w gogles (hard to use) My preferred Set for available light even when travelling: 24Lux / 35Lux / 75Lux rgds JPH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted January 19, 2011 Share #44 Posted January 19, 2011 NB23 Fantasic post about prints. Your comments about prints are right on the mark. Gregory Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacarape Posted January 19, 2011 Share #45 Posted January 19, 2011 JPH, look at the humming bird pic above that I posted. The OOF there is really nice. Chrismy 35/1.4 is nice, but any brightness in the back ground seems to bloom, and vertical lines double up. Look at the dog picture I posted. Here is another from the 35SX ASPH on Plus-X at about F4 if I remember trying to get the DOF correct. Some PP was done in Elements 5 (I hate PP and suck at it, which is why I likeK64/E-6) to get the background highlights under control. I think the 35 SX ASPH bouquet is over rated, but not glaringly ugly like the photo Maurizio posted from the FLE. All things Mandler! I'm starting to think they were the best ever, the price/performance ratio will never be equaled(?). The 75/1.4 will never be equaled. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/141968-your-best-and-worst-lens-oof-discussion-only/?do=findComment&comment=1563237'>More sharing options...
UliWer Posted January 19, 2011 Share #46 Posted January 19, 2011 ...The 75/1.4 will never be equaled. Perhaps we should call those lenses the best which most of the times render the subject we focus on out of focus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share #47 Posted January 19, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a hard time with easy statements as "this lens is good" and "this lens is not good" in this digital era. People are judging their lenses on scanned negatives and on a few digital shots. The problem with digital is that the users degrade the images with all kinds of programs, therefore totally killing any lens' rendition ... ...All I can say is that if one is to judge his lenses, it has to be done by looking at prints. A lens simply cannot be judged in a lightroom window. You made some good points on this post, but there's a sort of "film is better than digital" feeling that I can't describe (and share). Then, you made some generalization and statement not exactly "gentle" to the community. All the photography "Experts" buy and sell lenses by the day, judging them from a few files Dont' get me wrong, this is not a "J'accuse", this is my reflection. should take no less then 6 months of intensive shooting. Something that simply doesn't happen in this digital era I felt involved with this last quote, since, as I said, I bought and sold the 35lux ASPHII two times, in less than two months altogether. I used the "older" 35luxes for more than 6years, both with films and digital, so I don't think I need 6month at least to see when something is good (or not as in this case) for my needs. I remember Enzo Ferrari taking 1" to understand whether an engine was good or not for the race. And he was rarely wrong. I like the idea that we can establish a sudden contact with a lens, no matter if that's supposed to be the best or the worst lens on the internet (and its hype). I don't care. I was able to see whether a lens was good for me on film at the time (and still now), as well as my father was able too. I don't think I lost that skill, somewhat I have the feeling that I can still do that, simply in a faster way, and with different awareness due to technology. Then again, I respect your point of view, I share some ideas, but I feel a sort of pessimism that I don't like. But that's just me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 19, 2011 Share #48 Posted January 19, 2011 ...Neutral: ... 90 Summicron pre-asph... Do you mean the M? The R is superb imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 19, 2011 Share #49 Posted January 19, 2011 Thanks for relating, Gergory. Indeed, a lens' rendering in all its facets really comes to life in prints, especially silver prints where the grains are modeled after the light. By looking at many silver prints, and with a trained eye, the beauty and character of each lens simply stands out, screams in all its purity as opposed to digital prints where the image has gone through so many digital modification that it doesn't resemble the original image in any way. The light itself has been modified to an incommensurable degree. Going to the Museum such as the MOMA, or viewing Ansel adams prints, HCB, Doisneau or Robert Frank prints, one can undeniably see the lens' implication in the image. With digital, in general, this is completely lost except for the boogie (I mean bokeH), which is physical. Mauribix, I absolutely don't think you don't know what you are talking about. Quite the opposite. And you are the only person on this planet to know what's best for you and what's to your taste. All I said is that it takes months, years and even more years for someone to have a real idea about the lenses and their renditions. We are all guilty, though, and me the first. This is why I can never really give a totally honest opinion on the lenses I own in general. I am still debating on many lenses that I own. One thing is sure: in about 4 months, when I will have gone through 1500 prints from negatives that I have shot mainly with the 21 lux, 35 lux asph, noctilux, 75 cron, 50 lux asph, only then I will be able to really say which lens is which simply by looking at the prints' gradation and general look. Depending on the filter gradations and necessary dodging and burning within a same negative will reveal many things that a sensor will auto correct and that a sensor simply cannot record. Light falling and carving tiny grains of silver is just not the same as light hitting a sensor, no matter the number of bits. The Gentleness, the finesse of light is not recorded in the same way... All IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted January 19, 2011 Author Share #50 Posted January 19, 2011 I second every single word of you last post NB23. Thank you for taking the time to share. Ciao! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D&A Posted January 21, 2011 Share #51 Posted January 21, 2011 NB23 Wrote--->"Light falling and carving tiny grains of silver is just not the same as light hitting a sensor, no matter the number of bits. The Gentleness, the finesse of light is not recorded in the same way... All IMO" I couldn't agree more with this statement, and too they are entirely different. I've used many lenses with a known signature (or drawing) on film that translate differently on a digital sensor. Sometimes the image characteristics I endear to, translate reasonably well (abeit different) on a sensor and sometimes not at all. Again all subjective. What I think is that the subjectivity of image characteristrics given for certain lenses (or any number of lenses in general) should have seperate criteria and descriptions for their use with film vs.digital (and of course this is often done). Although one can say there is less nuances and subtleties when used on a digital sensor, I also often think that its simply a question of difference in the way it performs on these two very different platforms and not always is it always more positive for film. If one is exclusively now using only digital or only film, then all they generally have to concern themselves with is how that lens performs for them on the platform they work with. This is an oversimplification of course. Again getting back to you premise, I agree, film definitely brings out the subtleties of a lenses characteristics possible better than use with a sensor...at least thats been my experience too. Dave (D&A) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 21, 2011 Share #52 Posted January 21, 2011 I've been using for 30+ years 4+ dozen lenses from Leica, Nikon, CV and other makers with Leica, Canon, Epson and Nikon bodies. If you ask me which of those lenses behave significantly differently on film or digital i could not quote a single one to be honest. I do see different behaviors of film and digital in general but to me lenses remain the same, especially about bokeh. FWIW. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 21, 2011 Share #53 Posted January 21, 2011 I couldn't agree more with this statement, and too they are entirely different. I've used many lenses with a known signature (or drawing) on film that translate differently on a digital sensor. Sometimes the image characteristics I endear to, translate reasonably well (abeit different) on a sensor and sometimes not at all. Again all subjective. Dave (D&A) The Summarit 5cm f1.5 comes to my mind immediately. On film, it has the loveliest rendition, quite magical. I am always astounded at how good that lens is. The Summilux asph and even the Noctilux can't compete next to this gem as far as character and unique rendition is concerned. Many will argue but my prints tend to prove my point. As a matter of fact, all my Summarit prints and slides can be isolated by my wife and friends among hundreds of prints. The looong shades of gray and shadow detail, as well as all the pastel colors that come out when shooting color is simply outstanding! The Summarit is magical. And on a M8, all the magic is lost to some puny, vulgar aberrations. Quite incredible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coup de foudre Posted January 21, 2011 Share #54 Posted January 21, 2011 The Summarit 5cm f1.5 comes to my mind immediately. On film, it has the loveliest rendition, quite magical. I am always astounded at how good that lens is. The Summilux asph and even the Noctilux can't compete next to this gem as far as character and unique rendition is concerned. Many will argue but my prints tend to prove my point. As a matter of fact, all my Summarit prints and slides can be isolated by my wife and friends among hundreds of prints. The looong shades of gray and shadow detail, as well as all the pastel colors that come out when shooting color is simply outstanding! The Summarit is magical. And on a M8, all the magic is lost to some puny, vulgar aberrations. Quite incredible. in certain instances, this may be due as much to the crop as it is to the whole film/digital debate... try shooting the lens on an M9 and you may get the magic back! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted January 21, 2011 Share #55 Posted January 21, 2011 in certain instances, this may be due as much to the crop as it is to the whole film/digital debate... try shooting the lens on an M9 and you may get the magic back! I did... The pics simply lacked contrast and had aberrations. On film, this lens sings! Just goes to show the differences... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 21, 2011 Share #56 Posted January 21, 2011 The Summarit [50 mm 1:1.5] is magical. And on a M8, all the magic is lost to some puny, vulgar aberrations. Are you talking about printed M8 images or pixel-peeped M8 images? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezc203 Posted January 21, 2011 Share #57 Posted January 21, 2011 Not sure what direction this thread is heading in, but I'd like to make some contributions to the original topic. My limited lens line-up only allows me to pick my Top 2 lens, in terms of bokeh and OOF areas: 1. 24mm Lux 2. 90mm 'Cron pre-AA The 24 Lux just has this cream, wide open at 1.4, that I cannot describe. So here's a picture (really any excuse to post pictures ): In my opinion, both foreground and background bokehs are very beautifully rendered here. Also, the 90 Cron comes in a close second. - Also worth mentioning is the 24mm Elmarit on my X1. Quite the little trooper that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.