earleygallery Posted January 15, 2012 Share #21 Posted January 15, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) James, how do you rate its bokeh? I think it's fine. It's a superb little lens and may offer the slightly less 'clinical' look which the OP seems to desire. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Hi earleygallery, Take a look here m9 + 35mm summicron. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
fWord Posted January 15, 2012 Share #22 Posted January 15, 2012 A depressing thought. What's so depressing about what was said? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 15, 2012 Share #23 Posted January 15, 2012 You need to define "critical" for a start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 16, 2012 Share #24 Posted January 16, 2012 I think it's fine. It's a superb little lens and may offer the slightly less 'clinical' look which the OP seems to desire. May i ask you is you use it with digital? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted January 16, 2012 Share #25 Posted January 16, 2012 brittle as ........ a CD trying to deal with a string quartet. A wonderfully apposite analogy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 16, 2012 Share #26 Posted January 16, 2012 my question then is as follows -- what is a reasonable alternative? i like the 28mm summicron but don't really want to go wider. are there any other 35mm, new or old, that people can recommend for the m9 to get a less clinical look? Learn to do some post processing to get what you want, that is all you need. Its is only like deciding you don't like a type of film, so you change it. That is all the digital file is, a universal type of film with all the characteristics of each type embedded in it waiting for you to make a choice. And if one lens is too contrasty for you, lower the contrast, if a lens is too sharp then you soften the image etc. It is only subtly different rendering that characteristics modern Leica lenses, so it is only subtle post processing that you need to do. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share #27 Posted January 16, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) So therefore all these threads commenting on the virtue of one lens vs another are essentially meaningless because all cam be fixed in pp? Lens matters only for focal length and speed? For that matter why even buy a leica lens or pay for more than a summarit? While I am more than capable of getting what I want in pp I prefer to believe the lens matters. Apparently I am mistaken? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted January 16, 2012 Share #28 Posted January 16, 2012 No of course you are not. Mimicking the character of a lens is perhaps possible in PP (i can't personally) but that would take so much time and energy that using the real thing would be more than a bliss. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 16, 2012 Share #29 Posted January 16, 2012 So therefore all these threads commenting on the virtue of one lens vs another are essentially meaningless because all cam be fixed in pp? Of course they aren't meaningless, people spent time thinking about your question and giving thoughtful answers. I spent time thinking about it, and concluded that if all you want is a less clinical look much can be done in post processing. I mean, you can't do it the other way around, take a softer lens and make it sharper, but if the clinical look is all about the perfection of the lens it is far easier to strip that perfection away in pp. Obviously the immediate reaction on this forum is that money should be thrown at the 'problem'. But Leica did supply Lightroom with your camera for a reason, with all the functions enabled, which suggest to me that they anticipate photographers deciding the out of camera rendering doesn't necessarily have to be set in stone. Using a new lens that renders a scene differently is fun and can inspire the photographer, it can render the scene exactly as the photographer wants even without post processing, but there is usually more than one way to crack a nut, it just requires some imagination. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fWord Posted January 16, 2012 Share #30 Posted January 16, 2012 So therefore all these threads commenting on the virtue of one lens vs another are essentially meaningless because all cam be fixed in pp? Lens matters only for focal length and speed? For that matter why even buy a leica lens or pay for more than a summarit? While I am more than capable of getting what I want in pp I prefer to believe the lens matters. Apparently I am mistaken? In addition to the two excellent responses above, consider these: Buy a modern Leica lens because you desire consistent results and ultimate usability from wide open. Or other reasons to buy a Leica lens could be other subjective things such as for build quality, or other factors such as potential resale value. Or buy a Leica lens just because you can. Not every purchase requires a justification, at least for some people. They buy simply because they can afford it. Pay more for a Summicron than a Summarit because you want or need the extra speed or greater ability for selective focus. No PP that I know of is going to buy you a faster lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted January 17, 2012 Share #31 Posted January 17, 2012 If you want an excellent, perhaps more "gentle (or natural) rendering" lens - consider the Zeiss Biogon T* 2/35 ZM lens. While it might not have the same mechanical build as the Leica lens nor be as small - it's a really nice lens that renders beautifully. While contrasty, it's not over the top. A little ironic, as I've been curious about the Leica Summicron-M 35mm f/2 ASPH lately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel buck Posted January 18, 2012 Share #32 Posted January 18, 2012 I have adopted the biogon 28/35 as my main lens recently, and I have been quite pleased with it. I don't normally shoot it wide open (wanting to have more in focus) normally shooting it at f4 or f5.6. I like it, and man it really is resistant to flaring, I don't ever feel like I need a lens hood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.