1930's vs 1960/70's

[Perceval]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just done some comparative tests between f3.5 35mm and 50mm Elmars from the Thirties and a 1973 35mm Summicron (3rd version) and a 1956 50mm Summicron. I used a 4/3rds camera via an adapter, on a tripod, and used small apertures to eliminate any fitting inaccuracy there may have been in the adapter.

 

The lenses from the Thirties performed extremely well. Definition was high and there was only a slight reduction in contrast compared to the later examples.

 

This does seem to raise the suggestion that - especially for black-and-white - the older lenses are more than adequate. Having just paid an insane amount for the 1973 35mm f2 Summicron I am hoping somebody will tell me it was worth it. I am not a collector. I used my equipment for black-and-white landscape work.

[lars_bergquist]

The older lenses are generally softer around the edges and in the corners than more modern glass. I suspect that the fact that you are using a four thirds camera for your testing must hide that fact. Its sensor does not use the outer field of any 35mm camera lens.

 

Still, the most drastic improvement in lens performance has occurred from the late 1970's and into the present. Nothing from the past, however 'classical', can hold a candle to modern lenses. This said, the old 5cm Elmar is a remarkably fine lens. I have seen very good work done with it, fitted to a Leica I (A) with modern negative colour film in it.

 

The old man of approximately the same age

[Perceval]

Thanks; I had overlooked the fact that the 4/3rd system uses only the middle of the picture area. I will repeat the test with black-and-white film. Incidentally, while I said I am not a collector I think this forum is an appropriate place for my query since collectors are experts in the matter.

[scsambrook]

Using wider apertures will probably show up the differences more, but older Leitz (and other) lenses are indeed more than adequate - much more than adequate for most of our everyday photography.

 

Whether your 35mm Summicron was "worth" the price you paid for it is for you to decide - most secondhand Leica lens prices seem more imbecilic than merely insane to me, but then I'm a geriatric cheapskate whose opinons on these things are clearly way out of line with the majority of buyers.

 

Having spent the money, the best thing is to get out and enjoy using the lens as often as possible. The results will be good. Technically of course; the aesthetics are another matter;)

[scsambrook]

[. . . ] since collectors are experts in the matter.

 

Well . . . some of them are. The ones who actually use what they collect are the ones to heed. But not the ones who regurgitate what they've read, rather than what they've seen for themselves.

 

Happily there are many regular posters on LUF who fall into the former category.

[Perceval]

Which is why I did not go for the Aspherical version - or even the cult-status version 4, which seems less robust than its predecessors (or is that Leica blasphemy?).

Certainly, I prefer the character of older types; the latest asphericals are fine for applied photography but seem too clinically sharp and contrasty for my taste. I recommend the work of the late James Ravilious, who used an M-Leica with early uncoated lenses for his black-and-white rural documentary work.

 

I will use my latest acquisition as much as possible, secure in the knowledge that it will not depreciate significantly, if at all, when in my stewardship. Leica lenses having a life of their own, I am merely responsible for it until its future owner takes over (!)

[luigi bertolotti]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1) This does seem to raise the suggestion that - especially for black-and-white - the older lenses are more than adequate.

 

2) Having just paid an insane amount for the 1973 35mm f2 Summicron I am hoping somebody will tell me it was worth it. I am not a collector. I used my equipment for black-and-white landscape work.

 

From a collector and a user who owns a number of 35s, from the old Elmar to the Summicron asph...

 

1) TRUE - keeping in mind that very old ones will never give you the sharpness and contrast of modern - which can or cannot be an issue : a photo can be GREAT even taken with the cheapest of russians... this must never be forgotten

2) A Summicron 35 is always a good aquisition, a nice-to-have, a pleasure-to-use, a value that won't fade in the years. In terms of pure value-for-use, it can be not the optimal choice, and this applies to an insane number of Leitz lenses... but... we love them...

[UliWer]

Here I tried a blind test comparison of 5 different 35mm lenses from Leitz/Leica with the M9. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/177869-psychological-barrier-old-lenses-2.html#post1685704

 

There is always a center and a corner crop for each lens. Each example is taken with maximum aperture, i.e f/3.5 for the Elmar and first Summaron; f/2.8 for the second Summaron, f/2 for the Summicron (version IV) and f/1.4 for the Summilux asph (former version).

 

If you like you can try to guess as they are not in any order. (I have deleted the originals and for two examples I am not completely sure which is which ).

[250swb]

If you are testing lenses I don't think you should be using a small aperture. From the 1930's to the present day the sweet spot of pretty well all lenses will be around f/4, f/5.6, and f/8. As designs improve the extreme ends of the aperture range tend to gain better resolution, but for outright quality it is f/5.6 that is the decider. Stopping down will only introduce the effects of diffraction, not usually worth worrying about in day to day shooting, but it will give a false impression when pixel peeping. Anyway, you don't need to compensate for any inaccuracies in the mount by stopping down, if you see it is in focus on the LCD it is in focus, the mount could be a few thou' to thin or a few thou' to thick, it doesn't matter. But good luck, I never have the patience for testing things like that.

 

Steve

[Perceval]

Thanks, Steve; I agree about using apertures of around ca 5.6. Unfortunately, I was using a low cost converter to 4/3rds and the lenses would not focus to infinity, so I had to use small apertures to achieve this through depth-of-field. So one lesson here is not to use cheap converters.

 

(The last time I did this kind of testing was in 1960, when I was young enough to know everything; I'm not sure now, except for the feeling that I should use whatever time I have left for getting out and taking pictures!

[pico]

If a lens works for you, then that is all that matters, but you really must test a Leica lens on a Leica. A mismatch adapter is unacceptable.

 

It is impossible to generalize about early lenses simply due to the ravages of age, especially early coatings, if they had any. I have some 30's MF cameras and the same models made post WWII and the differences are significant. If I want better micro-contrast I use the later ones. If shooting casual landscapes, the earlier one pleases me.

 

I think you are in good shape with a good early lens.

Enjoy!

 

About the 4/3 adapters. I use Voigtlander's because they are precise and especially because they have a little ridge at the rear that keeps one from collapsing a lens into the sensor. Nice touch.

[250swb]

Yes it is difficult to understand somebody bothering to make an adapter that won't let the lens focus to infinity, Its just as expensive to set up your tooling accurately as it is to set it up badly.

 

The Rayqual adapter is very good, also badged as Cameraquest but at a higher price.

 

Steve

[Perceval]

Why do men climb mountains? Because they are there. (Attributed to George Mallory ca 1924).

 

Why do people by 35mm Summicrons? Same reason.

[pico]

Why do men climb mountains? Because they are there. (Attributed to George Mallory ca 1924).

 

Why do people by 35mm Summicrons? Same reason.

 

When Abraham Lincoln was asked "How long should a man's leg be?", he answered, "Long enough to reach the ground." Then the questioner asked, "And how long should his penis be?" Lincoln answered "Same answer."