"rendering is clinical" - huh???

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure there are maestros on this forum who look at a scene, and say to themselves "Oh, no. This is not a Leica aspherical shot. I need to use my ASPH, or my CV". Ahem! That may work for you, and I'm deeply impressed.

Examining a photograph to determine what lens it was shot on is not the point. A photograph which was taken using the optimal combination of equipment (including lens). most effective technique and so on for the subject and lighting is a bit like an MTF cascade - everything will add together (perhaps reinforce when the 'best' combination is selected) and the end result will be the sum of its parts. The resulting image can IMHO be enhanced by the correct choice of lens and so the lens is a tool to be used where and when suitable. Modern 'aspheric' type lenses with modern, clean, crispness across the entire frame with minimal aberrations can be useful but so too can older, softer, less well corrected lenses when the subject matter does not require the 'clinical' bite of a modern lens.

 

I have been using a 3-element 90mm f/4 Elmar recently. Its characteristics include a lower than modern overall contrast, good micro detail and amazing flare resistance. Pictures taken in hard light are not as punchy as those from more modern lenses and shooting into the light fails to produce any unpleasant flare artifacts so far. It is different from a modern lens and at times this difference shows. Whether this is of any interest to many photographers is a different question, but I enjoy looking at different lenses, assessing their characteristics and using them if and when appropriate.

[lct]

...How tight are those two crops you have posted? Would you mind posting both photos full size, no crop?

No problem (3 MB files)

http://tinyurl.com/3wbl4gm

http://tinyurl.com/3r6hwh7

[pico]

There was a time in photography's history, say 1850-1940 when many people chose lenses for their particular rendering, and renderings varied considerably, regardless of the price - a quite expensive lens might be the one with a particular (and often manually adjustable) aberration via a dial at the front or rear. (Oh, and talk of focus-shift - many had to be focused at working aperture). Certainly, many chose the very sharpest lens possible and stopped to ideal aperture which due to the typical large formats was physically quite small. Very many others chose lenses with significantly different aberrations. But the point is people chose from a great variety of lens characteristics for the purpose of printed outcomes.

 

Our choices in this regard is still available thanks to a very few early LTM and perhaps a couple early M mount lenses (and one modern Asian variable bokeh lens), however Leica's ASPH trend is giving us lenses that I consider harsh, especially brutal and contrasty, even in their OOF/Bokeh. This is all well and good in terms of a technical progress but not good to the (perhaps few) of us who are not impressed with prints that are so sharp, with such microcontrast that the prints are practically surreal, and that is what I consider 'clinical'. Small format documentary photographers definitely benefit and so do we with such documentary renderings. But I'm not of that group. Perhaps, just perhaps this is what some others mean by 'clinical'.

 

To each his own and I am happy with alternatives still available.

 

--

Pico - whose work today will be all 6x9cm post WWII Super Ikonta. Of course I'll also be carrying the M9 because, well, sometimes it's just necessary.

[lars_bergquist]

[ ... ] Our choices in this regard is still available thanks to a very few early LTM and perhaps a couple early M mount lenses (and one modern Asian variable bokeh lens), however Leica's ASPH trend is giving us lenses that I consider harsh, especially brutal and contrasty, even in their OOF/Bokeh.

 

This sweeping verdict is just nonsense. I am sorry that I must use this impolite word, but non-sense – contrafactual non-sense, is just that: Nonsense.

 

Just one example, because it is publicly available: In the August issue of LFI, the Summilux 50mm (v.1), the Summilux-M 50mm (v.2) and the Summilux M ASPH 50mm have been pitted against each other, imaging the identical subject in identical lighting at the identical aperture – f:1.4 – and on the identical camera – a M9. The result was extremely plain to see: The v.1 had the harshest boke, v.2 was better, but best of them was the ASPH with a creamy smooth rendering.

 

This 'harsh rendering / bad boke' carping has long ago left all normal regard for evidence behind. The Fuzzies do insist on their claims, probably becase they have nothing to say that can stand the light of reason.

 

Rendering and boke – meaning, rendering at the plane of maximum sharpness and off it – is the outcome of manifold factors and is not the result of just 'modernity' or using aspherical surfaces. Therefore, judgments across the board are completely unwarranted. But admittedly, a lens that is so badly corrected that it produces only fuzz will probably satisfy even the Fuzzies.

 

The old man from the Age (Very Long Ago) When Fuzziness Was Bad. (Especially in your head.)

[gvaliquette]

...

Just one example, because it is publicly available: In the August issue of LFI, the Summilux 50mm (v.1), the Summilux-M 50mm (v.2) and the Summilux M ASPH 50mm have been pitted against each other, imaging the identical subject in identical lighting at the identical aperture – f:1.4 – and on the identical camera – a M9. The result was extremely plain to see: The v.1 had the harshest boke, v.2 was better, but best of them was the ASPH with a creamy smooth rendering.

...

 

I am fortunate enough to own a Summilux-M 50mm (v.1). I like and use the lens. I am also unlikely to be fortunate enough to get a Summilux-M ASPH 50mm anytime soon. I can't afford it at this point!

 

So I keep on using my Summilux-M 50mm (v.1). The funny things are, the differences are minor and, from f2.8 on, one cannot tell which lens has been used.

 

My point is: use the equipment you have and don't waste your money on the lottery to get the equipment you lust after! (All lotteries are hugely profitable for the organizations that run them)

 

Guy

[lct]

Did LFI do their bokeh test at other apertures than f/1.4?

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LCT--

LFI shows comparisons for f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8.

[lct]

Thanks Howard. Pity i don't receive LFI as i would be quite interested to see this famous "creamy bokeh" of the asph version at medium apertures. I've been using this lens for 5+ years now and i'm still waiting to watch this. I like it much otherwise.

[ho_co]

LCT, it's basically an article of relatively small pictures (5.5 x 8.5 cm). Nicely done, but too small for me to generalize from. Still, in the samples chosen, the Summilux I has the harshest boke, and the ASPH the least obtrusive. I think it comes down to the fact that Leica has the resources and knowledge to prove anything they want.

[lct]

Hehe yes perhaps now i've been using those lenses too long to be partial in any way but speaking of "creamy" bokeh about asph lenses is a bit too much for me. Salt cream perhaps? YMMV.

[UliWer]

LCT, it's basically an article of relatively small pictures (5.5 x 8.5 cm). Nicely done, but too small for me to generalize from. Still, in the samples chosen, the Summilux I has the harshest boke, and the ASPH the least obtrusive. I think it comes down to the fact that Leica has the resources and knowledge to prove anything they want.

 

I think the whole article in LFI was well meant - and I am sure it was inspired by reading this forum with so many questions about which lens is better.

 

Though those tiny pictures don't show much. The print is not bad, but also no ideal medium for revealing subtle differences. What I found most funny was the fact that the woman looks best on the photos of the 50 lux asph, and does seem to be already enervated by the session when it comes to the two other Summiluxes at f/1.4. For f/2.8 she only smiles for the current summilux, but looks almost angry for all other five lenses. This alone makes more difference for the photos than the whole lens issue.

 

 

P.S.: I am sure Mr. pico will show us soon some better comparisons, where we can see the harsh, especially brutal and contrasty 50 Summilux asph. even in it's OOF/Bokeh .

[insomnia]

I made the switch from 50mm pre-asph to asph version recently. The asph is often a lot smoother wide open (see examples). When stopped down you can see, that the pre-asph benefits of its higher number of aperture blades - with the asph circles tend to get edges, most visible at about f/2.8.

 

No claim of scientific view

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!

[pico]

Did LFI do their bokeh test at other apertures than f/1.4?

 

Worry none were.

[EJohnE]

Bugger bokeh.

[erl]

Bugger bokeh.

 

Do so at your own peril. ie. you could bugger your picture.

 

As a working professional I have a number of mantras. One is: "just worry about the background, the subject will take care of itself." Many good image run the risk of being spoiled by bad bad backgrounds, whether it is 'wrong' bokeh or just untidy.

[lars_bergquist]

I am fortunate enough to own a Summilux-M 50mm (v.1). I like and use the lens. I am also unlikely to be fortunate enough to get a Summilux-M ASPH 50mm anytime soon. I can't afford it at this point!

 

So I keep on using my Summilux-M 50mm (v.1). The funny things are, the differences are minor and, from f2.8 on, one cannot tell which lens has been used.

 

My point is: use the equipment you have and don't waste your money on the lottery to get the equipment you lust after! (All lotteries are hugely profitable for the organizations that run them)

 

Guy

 

What you say is eminently sensible. I have no personal experience of the v.1, but I used the v.2 until 2005, when I changed over to the ASPH. All the while, I kept a Summicron for work that demanded quality at apertures of 2–5.6 – and when the lighting did not make me fear the 'cron's proneness to nasty flare surprises. This was akin to the situation one or two generations ago, when 'speed lenses' were usable for speed only. Workers like Paul Wolff used their Elmar lenses whenever this was possible, and the Summar only when the light did absolutely require it. The first Summicron was the first 'speed lens' that could compete with 'slow lenses' when stopped down. (But it had or acquired its own quirks.)

 

So I have seen firsthand that the boke of the ASPH is actually better than that of the v.2. As has been pointed out, the demonstration in the LFI is not exhaustive or even very good. But it does show how it is (and the model's mood btw is irrelevant – that was not what the pictures aimed at showing). And regardless, the v.2 was a very nice lens, as I am sure that your v.1 is, too.

 

So I bought an early ASPH, not for its 'modernity' but in order to have one 50mm lens that delivered Summicron quality without the 'crons nasty habits. The speed is a bonus but I do seldom use it. After all, the ISO norm is no longer Kodachrome 64, as it was when I bought the lens.

 

The old man from the Film Age

[lars_bergquist]

LCT, it's basically an article of relatively small pictures (5.5 x 8.5 cm). Nicely done, but too small for me to generalize from. Still, in the samples chosen, the Summilux I has the harshest boke, and the ASPH the least obtrusive. I think it comes down to the fact that Leica has the resources and knowledge to prove anything they want.

 

LFI is not owned by Leica (and never was). They run their tests in Hamburg, not in Solms. They are of course dependent on good relations with Leica, for test lenses etc., but they do strive, if not for absolute impartiality (whatever that may mean) but at least for credibility. They can't publish nonsense.

 

And they DO publish evidence. Some people in the "we all know better, ha ha" crowd should consider doing the same.

 

The old man from the Age of Film

[ho_co]

Lars, I agree about LFI's independence and respectability. The data are presented honestly, but frequently with a textual convolution that tends to reflect the "Leica point of view."

 

My point wasn't to criticize the magazine but to say that the LFI tests clearly show that the boke of the current Summilux is less harsh than that of its predecessors, despite the fact that LCT's specific illustration seems to show just the opposite.

 

The LFI shots show out-of-focus highlights that are several meters behind the focus plane; LCT's example seems to show highlights closer to the focus plane. Perhaps that makes a difference. It is certainly the kind of knowledge that would be passed on to a shooter if it would make a test come out more favorable: It isn't dishonest to know one's tools.

 

 

LFI is not owned by Leica (and never was)....

Correct, but that may change: Hasn't Dr Kaufmann made a move to purchase the magazine?

[pico]

There have always been people who take up photography, not because they are interested in the medium, but because they do not have the talent and the self-discipline to learn to paint.

 

Dear Lars, sometimes your sarcasm does you an injustice. I was an artist before I took up photography and I still do some art. Let's not talk about 'have been people ... who had no discipline to (paint, sculpt, draw...), but stick to the trends.

 

A hundred years ago they were called Pictorialists. They claimed that the sharp pictures made by the new-fangled anastigmat lenses were too sharp, vulgar (i.e. they looked like photographs, not like fuzzy romantic salon paintings) and, probably, clinical and sterile. So they took up pinhole photography, They smeared Vaseline on their lenses. They kicked the legs of the tripod during exposure. They treated their glass plate negatives with sandpaper. And they invented devious printing techniques like bromoil to introduce the desired fuzz and the lack of detail. There were soft-focus lenses galore.

 

Quite true and the soft-focus lens is still popular in many portrait studios - and worse, post-processing (which I call photo-chopping) is more prevalent than ever. So many portrait makers are still escaping true realism, sharpness is unacceptable to many of them. (Avedon's later work was a screaming criticism of such. Good for him.)

 

Eventually, they were ridiculed to death.

 

Always wishing to be the centre of photographic aesthetics, Stieglitz wrote in 1910 that pictorial photography be beaten down.

 

Sharpness, clarity and light became the watchwords of the time. But in the 1950's, Pictorialism returned. Now the tack was different however. Photographs should look, believe it or not, more 'photographic'. Specifically, that meant that they had to be so grainy that they looked like printed on light-sensitive macadam.

 

We disagree on that view. I invite people to look at photographs from the Fifties to make up their own mind.

 

[.... snip good stuff ...]

 

Now, if you had told Ansel Adams or Edward Weston or any other real photographer that their lenses were too 'clinical' and sharp, they would have said "huh" and then guffawed. Their lenses were not sharp enough. They were willing to stop down to f/64 to get images that were sharp enough, and they called their mini-movement "the f/64 school".

 

Yes. It was a refreshing break, but it was about more than sharpness. Note how the F/64 school moved to making photos of objects and much less photographing people. I would not even call their work documentary, regardless of its sterile non-statements of subjects.

 

The problem is not that lenses are too sharp – those early anastigmats were not that sharp, really – but that some people hate photography, and still they will not leave it alone. But I do not understand what they are complaining about. You can still buy soft filters of various strengths to suit your tastes, if those are your tastes. But that would perhaps be a too overt admission of their aberration.

 

With respect, I don't think you understand the craft of 'un-sharpness'. It happens inside the lens. Filters do not do the same thing.

 

--

Pico - A little younger than Mr. Bergquist

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pico]

[...]P.S.: I am sure Mr. pico will show us soon some better comparisons, where we can see the harsh, especially brutal and contrasty 50 Summilux asph. even in it's OOF/Bokeh .

 

*Ya got me*

 

I would have to point to others' photos since I do not own a 50 Summilux. (If Leica would like to give me one, I'd use it to discover myself what's what.) I use a pristine old Summitar which is too old for the article. It has just the look I like in a 50mm.

 

BTW - I think the article in question was good, but the images were too small and unconvincing in any way.

 

Aside: I have a love/hate relationship with the V2 35mm Summilux. I'm on my third one now. I appreciate its rendering of depth at wide apertures (OOF), but occasionally that huge half-circle of flare at f/1.4 (especially at night) is a nightmare.

 

--

Pico of red face