lens's character

[Mylek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is often comments on lenss having some character or personality on the forum.

I'll like to know which one shares them as a matter of homogenity for a series of pictures.

Do all the ASPH, Cron or Lux family will have the same look or it is more mix.

I'm talking in terms of contrast, bokeh, color rendition...

 

Regards!

[Studio58]

prepare for an inundation of expert opinion. There is a lot of knowledge in the ranks of this forum. I for one am not an authority on this matter

[Rafael08]

See, for example, THIS thread.

[lars_bergquist]

Older lenses, naturally, are less well corrected for optical aberrations and other quirks than newer lenses, because technology has advanced steadily during the century that Leitz/Leica lenses have been designed and manufactured. Even today, designers have to balance weaknesses against each other (for instance, less distortion tends to more vignetting) and with the older lenses, remaining faults, balanced in different ways, create a look or 'fingerprint' that is often easy to see. The much-discusssed 'Leica Glow' e.g. is mostly an effect of under-corrected spherical aberration, plus residual chromatic aberrations creating a kind of aura around contours.

 

Consequently, modern lenses, especially aspherical ones, are often accused of being characterless or 'clinical', meaning that their optical subject fidelity is high, and the interlocutor dislikes that. They are also said to be 'harsh', that is too sharp for someone's taste.

 

'Bad bokeh' is also a common accusation. Most that hurl it do not even know what the term is about; it is just felt to be sufficiently vague (and non-quantifiable) to fit in with the speaker's own vague dislike of what he sees. Bokeh, used by people who know what they are talking about, refers to the look of the out-of-focus parts of the image. Current lenses do in fact tend to have a smoother and more harmonious bokeh than older designs. See e.g the enlightening test of 50mm lenses in the Leica Fotografie International 6/2011 (August issue) p. 32 f.f. But if the 'bad bokeh' is just an unsubstantiated claim, accompanied by copious hand waving, regard it as the expression of a personal quirk and no more.

 

Leica lenses from the 1950's or 1960's are often modern enough to be useable (they are coated, for example) and can be fun to play with. Most serious photographers, especially pros, tend to prefer the more reliable modern lenses. This is personal, of course. My own attitude however is that the 'artistry' can be supplied by the photographer only and not by the lens; technical imperfection will seldom make a boring picture less boring.

 

The old man from the Age Before Coating

[Peter H]

.................. My own attitude however is that the 'artistry' can be supplied by the photographer only and not by the lens; technical imperfection will seldom make a boring picture less boring.

 

The old man from the Age Before Coating

 

Hear hear!

[pgk]

My own attitude however is that the 'artistry' can be supplied by the photographer only and not by the lens; technical imperfection will seldom make a boring picture less boring.

Whilst I would fully agree with Lars about this, it can be difficult to mimic the lens imperfections of older lenses using software so if your aim is homogeneity for a series of photographs taken by different lenses then it is probably best to stay with a set of lenses from the same design generation.

 

The current generation of lenses are highly corrected designs which are capable of making superlative images. Somewhat older designs such as those by Mandler represented the peak of lens design when they were designed, and whilst they are still extremely good, they do lack the 'clinical' reproduction of current designs. Having owned a current 35mm Summarit, current Summicron Asph and Summilux Asph (last generation) I would be hard pushed to tell them apart other than at widest apertures. However older Summicrons and pre-asph 'luxes are most decidedly different (I've owned v.1 and v.4 'crons and pre-asph luxes too) exhibiting the 'glow' Lars refers to.

 

Bokeh is a matter of much discussion and is of more relevance if your style of photography often includes areas which are both oof and which contribute significantly to the composition - I find that this is an often discussed topic but is less relevantly actually used (a personal opinion I hasten to add).

 

With regard to colour, I'd say that this is the least significant factor as software allows substantial adjustment, however flare is something that should be considered as some lenses are far less prone to flare than others (the 35mm Summarit is very flare resistant) and so using a selection of lenses which exhibit similar flare characteristics might be important if the series of images taken is shot in conditions which can give rise to flare.

[IWC Doppel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica site has a reference to a good Edwin Putts download on lens design, I'd put a link in but its too tricky on an iPad !

 

There are some lenses that do show a harsh bokeh, some Leica and others can be shown to look less smooth, soft and dreamy as they go out of focus. Seems the difference between lenses is down to a few unknown and known in this respect from my reading.

 

I have seen then correlation between sag and tan on MTF curves give some indication ( I think this is a misnomer )

 

The aperture shape and how the blade edges interact

 

The rate ofntransition from in to out of focus and lots of others, colour shift and contrast play a part too.

 

I have taken the simple approach of looking at reviews and pictures taken and I do like Steve

Huffs reviews. Most modern Leica are more accurate than some older models, and some aberrations can look nice.

 

I think there is a little nostalgia tainting some views. But on the other hand older designs with less accuracy can take wonderful pictures. Henry CB didn't seem to have a problem

[IWC Doppel]

I have a mkV 'king go bokeh' 35mm and the latest asph 35mm summicron

 

The early pre asph is my twin brothers and he has lent it to me. Taking comparisons you can see differences but it's more about the subject composure in my view.

 

The new has a little more contrast, sharpness and tonality, the old is a tad softer at the edges and a little creamier in the bokeh. I'd be happy with either

[Mylek]

Thanks!

 

I'm interested in these character because i'm looking for a 28mm but i can't decided which one. I'll like it to have one with a similar look or signature with my other lenses: 24 Elmarit, 35 pre asph cron and 50 and 75 cron on a M6 and M9.

I like my pictures to look more like being taken on film. It is easier to add contrat than remove it.

[lars_bergquist]

I got experience of some 28mm Leica lenses when I was using a M8; the cropped sensor gave a 28mm lens a field of view much like that of a 35mm lens on the full 35mm format, and that is a f.o.v. I am partial to.

 

I would advise against the v.1 Elmarit (1965–1972) as this is incompatible with TTL metering, and optically it is not really up to the Leica standard of its own time. This can also be said of v.2 (1972–1979). The first really good 28mm is the Mandler-designed and Canada made v.3 Elmarit, 1979–1993. This can still hold its own with many modern designs, though it has a slightly 'vintage' fingerprint, especially wide open. The v.4 lens (1993–2005) is more 'modern-looking'. The current 28mm Summicron ASPH is a wonderful lens. I used it extensively on my M8. It is sharp to the corners, still I have never heard even dedicated 'fuzzies' call it harsh. Its imagery is very harmonious and pleasant. I would recommend both the v.3 Elmarit and the Summicron for your attention. – Of the current Elmarit ASPH I have no personal experience.

 

I hope these impressions may be of some use to you.

 

The old man from the Age B.C.

[farnz]

... The current 28mm Summicron ASPH is a wonderful lens. ...

I completely agree with Lars. I think the 28/2 Summicron asph has outstanding micro-contrast that gives exceptionally smooth transitions from dark to light.

 

The 28/2.8 Elmarit asph is also a very good lens but has less smooth transitions of micro-contrast so in my view it tends to have a harsher, although some call it a higher contrast, look.

 

Pete.

[IWC Doppel]

Thanks!

 

I'm interested in these character because i'm looking for a 28mm but i can't decided which one. I'll like it to have one with a similar look or signature with my other lenses: 24 Elmarit, 35 pre asph cron and 50 and 75 cron on a M6 and M9.

I like my pictures to look more like being taken on film. It is easier to add contrat than remove it.

 

The 28 cron is superb and I love the look not just the incredible sharpness

[fWord]

Couldn't answer your question directly as I'm just not experienced with this. While I try to make good photos, I wouldn't consider myself a studious person when it comes to the character of various lenses.

 

In some cases the difference is obvious, for example between a 1950s lens and the newest ASPH designs. But I'd admit that in quite a lot of cases you could probably do a double-blind test on me and I couldn't tell the difference. Having been to a couple of exhibitions in the past, I've also concentrated more on the aesthetics of a photo such as lighting, pose and moment rather than pixel peeping to look at sharpness and noise levels.

 

I'd agree with the earlier comment by Lars regarding modern lenses being 'reliable'. By this I presume we're referring to modern lenses being able to produce more consistent results and straight from wide open. In this sense, the modern ASPH designs are worth the money...the ability to use any aperture and not worry about the technicalities. You can trust that the image will have good resolution and contrast, all other techniques being sound.

 

On the topic of bokeh, here's an article that might be of interest to you:

 

What is Bokeh? Over 50 Lenses rated for their out of focus blur. | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

 

This is just one person's opinion however. Frankly, I've seen examples of 'bad bokeh' from lenses traditionally accepted to have 'good bokeh'. It depends on the lighting (even backlighting), the kinds of objects that are out of focus, the distance from the plane of focus and whether they are in front of or behind the plane of focus.

 

Personally I think that the quality of bokeh is less important than the concept of using selective focus to bring your subject into relief and hence place the viewer's attention on the subject itself.

[Studio58]

 

'Bad bokeh' is also a common accusation. Most that hurl it do not even know what the term is about; it is just felt to be sufficiently vague (and non-quantifiable) to fit in with the speaker's own vague dislike of what he sees.

not confined to bokeh on this forum....

[Studio58]

Older lenses, naturally, are less well corrected for optical aberrations and other quirks than newer lenses, because technology has advanced steadily during the century that Leitz/Leica lenses have been designed and manufactured. Even today, designers have to balance weaknesses against each other (for instance, less distortion tends to more vignetting) and with the older lenses, remaining faults, balanced in different ways, create a look or 'fingerprint' that is often easy to see. The much-discusssed 'Leica Glow' e.g. is mostly an effect of under-corrected spherical aberration, plus residual chromatic aberrations creating a kind of aura around contours.

 

Consequently, modern lenses, especially aspherical ones, are often accused of being characterless or 'clinical', meaning that their optical subject fidelity is high, and the interlocutor dislikes that. They are also said to be 'harsh', that is too sharp for someone's taste.

 

'Bad bokeh' is also a common accusation. Most that hurl it do not even know what the term is about; it is just felt to be sufficiently vague (and non-quantifiable) to fit in with the speaker's own vague dislike of what he sees. Bokeh, used by people who know what they are talking about, refers to the look of the out-of-focus parts of the image. Current lenses do in fact tend to have a smoother and more harmonious bokeh than older designs. See e.g the enlightening test of 50mm lenses in the Leica Fotografie International 6/2011 (August issue) p. 32 f.f. But if the 'bad bokeh' is just an unsubstantiated claim, accompanied by copious hand waving, regard it as the expression of a personal quirk and no more.

 

Leica lenses from the 1950's or 1960's are often modern enough to be useable (they are coated, for example) and can be fun to play with. Most serious photographers, especially pros, tend to prefer the more reliable modern lenses. This is personal, of course. My own attitude however is that the 'artistry' can be supplied by the photographer only and not by the lens; technical imperfection will seldom make a boring picture less boring.

 

The old man from the Age Before Coating

 

This is a particularly informative post and answers many questions which have come to mind since becoming a member of this forum. I have read many times about the virtues of the older lenses compared to their modern counterparts, often the latter are spoken of in terms which would lead the Leica novice (me) into believing they are somehow inferior. Given my experience in photography and the fact that I have made many purchases over the years for the wrong reasons, these days I am less likely to be convinced by such opinion. As such, I have had my doubts regarding the validity of these views. The post by Lars has confirmed my suspicions. Thank you.

[IWC Doppel]

The wonderful thing about the internet is forums like these and for Leica lenses I like

 

For the more hard comparison :

 

Reid Reviews, Ken Rockwell (He is a bit Marmite IMO), Leica site for current and recent MTF's and technical detail plus Luminous Landscape, Leica site for the big download 'Shouls and Secrets'

 

For subjectivity and real images and views :

 

Then this site, Steve Huff and a few actual pictures found on flicker and pixel peeper to have a look. I also like Tao of Lieca as this does have a Erwin's views overlaid on technical analysis. Also Thorsten Overgaard

 

The it's time too buy n try

[lars_bergquist]

I would sincerely recommend Sean Reid's site. He is a working photographer, with a consequent grasp of proportions and of reality. At the same time, he has something of a scientific mind so that he understands the value of consistent test criteria, and of making the distinction between evidence and opinion, a distinction which I'm afraid is not always observed or even understood by other writers.

 

I frequented his site for two years. I regarded the small fee very well spent money, even in an economical sense, and I willl probably return. Obviously, Sean is not working full time on his meticulous testing, so the corpus of tests grows slowly. But his non-gear essays about working with RF cameras, and with flash, are very well worth reading too, and worth considering.

 

The old man from the Age of Thinking Photography

[Clive Murray-White]

I've held off on this one - just as I have with the R v M lens post but with them both running at the same time this is where I'll say something.

 

The world would be very strange place if you graded men and women the way we grade lenses, wine often, cars heaps, Chefs a lot and so on. The truth is we see magic in our own way and thank goodness we're all slightly different - maybe a lot different - it gets down, in the end, to what rocks your socks, someone can go nuts over over an old Hector, another can cry over over a Summicron, others cant live without this or that - in the end as far as I'm concerned, it's all about listening to your heart, eyes and believing that such and such is magic for you.

 

Re: R v M just look at the prices - I came to M by trying out R on various cameras, no comparison as far far as I can see, M wins everyday - but then that's just what rocks my boat

[Ralf]

Thanks!

 

I'm interested in these character because i'm looking for a 28mm but i can't decided which one. I'll like it to have one with a similar look or signature with my other lenses: 24 Elmarit, 35 pre asph cron and 50 and 75 cron on a M6 and M9.

I like my pictures to look more like being taken on film. It is easier to add contrat than remove it.

 

Get the 28mm Summicron, it is an outstanding lens indeed, even by Leica standards!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear