disappointed by Summilux 35 FLE

[Paul J]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I chose the worst tree sample. Spent literally 2 seconds in photoshop.

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!

[mwilliamsphotography]

Here two more testshots to make it clear.

 

first Leica 35 Summilux FLE at 2.0

second Nikon 28/1.8 at 2.0

 

both shot against the sun at ISO 200 at 2000/sec, cropped a bit.

 

I don´t want to talk down the lens, people who shoot "normally" probably will not notice, but for me, this is going to be a deal braker.

 

 

heiko

 

Grossly overexposed M pic compared to Nikon one that is less so (some blue sky in one, none in the other) ... still ... 35FLE image was a no brainer to correct in LightRoom ... exactly 2 seconds to be precise : -)

 

Marc

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Oh for crying out loud, there is nothing wrong with his lens, nor need he buy a different one, nor any lens filter or special post processing softening filter ... the OP simply needs to learn how to use the post processing tools the Gods of Adobe or Apple have already provided to us (I'm sure they exist in Aperture also).

 

Really sharp, highly corrected lenses produce purple fringing in certain lighting conditions and with certain sensors, especially CCDs with no AA filter like most CMOS cameras like Nikon and Canon have. Purple fringing is nothing new, and there are easy to use, very powerful tools to correct it whenever it rears its ugly head.

 

We also have tools like "Clarity" to either introduce a "more dreamy" or more acute look and feel to the image then mitigating Clarity with the other tools like contrast and highlight/shadow sliders.

 

Instead of everyone posting their images as proof of who knows what, why not just correct his test image? Heck, it was a no brainer to even fix the tiny jpeg he initially posted, let alone a full RAW DNG.

 

-Marc

See the shape of the sun? That is the sensor reaction to a more than extreme overexposure which has defeated the sensor's antiblooming.

 

 

As to the correcting in LR or other editors - yes, it works wonders. Yet I still prefer getting it right in the shot - and that means using softer less contrasty lenses and -maybe - even using film:eek:.

Edited August 7, 2012 by jaapv

[Paul J]

I agree. I've never been keen on the look of minus clarity in Lightroom. Looks ugly in my opinion.

 

If you want a dreamy look use a dreamy lens. There are plenty of them and lots of posts about them on this forum.

[01af]

I've never been keen on the look of minus clarity in Lightroom. Looks ugly in my opinion.

I think it can look wonderful, provided you don't overdo it as fiercely as Marc "fotografz" did in his example above. Slowly shift the Clarity slider to the left until the effect just starts becoming clearly apparent to your eye. Then back up from there a little; the effect should be subliminal rather than obvious. Looks good for dreamy sceneries or ladies' portraits etc.

[mwilliamsphotography]

So, one carries around a slew of the same expensive focal lengths, offering various degrees of contrast ... and/or a film camera ... in case one runs into a challenging situation once in a great while ... LOL! Only on the LUF.

 

-Marc

[mwilliamsphotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it can look wonderful, provided you don't overdo it as fiercely as Marc "fotografz" did in his example above. Slowly shift the Clarity slider to the left until the effect just starts becoming clearly apparent to your eye. Then back up from there a little; the effect should be subliminal rather than obvious. Looks good for dreamy sceneries or ladies' portraits etc.

 

I did clarity a lot to demo to the OP (who prefers the Nikon look and feel from his cheap lens) that's possible even with his ultra-expensive lens ... if that's what floats his boat. Waste of the 35FLE IMO, but that's his business.

 

-Marc

[Jamie Roberts]

Here two more testshots to make it clear.

 

first Leica 35 Summilux FLE at 2.0

second Nikon 28/1.8 at 2.0

 

both shot against the sun at ISO 200 at 2000/sec, cropped a bit.

 

I don´t want to talk down the lens, people who shoot "normally" probably will not notice, but for me, this is going to be a deal braker.

 

 

heiko

 

I hate to harp on this, but you didn't expose these the same. Take a light meter and test. My M9 is at least a third stop more sensitive than my D3 / 5d3, more like 3/4 stops in the 5d3 case.

 

That will make a difference with CA. So will the lack of an AA filter.

[Jamie Roberts]

So Leicas are limited tools which are not made to shoot against the light whilst Lomos can do it? Hard to believe, folks.

 

It's hard to believe because it's simply not true. The poster needs to understand post-processing and sharp lenses. Oh, and getting the same exposure would be nice as well I bet that 28 Nikkor (it is a very nice lens) also vignettes noticeably more than the Leica FLE, which probably accounts for another stop of difference in exposure between the two systems.

 

Which, of course, will guard against CA on the Nikon. It's great when a 1.8 lens is actually closer to f3.2 off center

 

They're different systems. If you like the Nikon system, then great. But hammering a (perceived) weak point of the M9 / FLE combo seems silly, since they don't suffer from a host of other issues, are over a stop faster, and are perfectly usable for this kind of shot with a little raw processing technique.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Jamie Roberts

[Paul J]

So, one carries around a slew of the same expensive focal lengths

 

Yes but it's not mandatory.

 

Only on the LUF

 

It's commonly spoken about as "choosing the right tool for the right job". It's not exclusive to LUF.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Paul J

[Jamie Roberts]

Back-light, soft focus is a lost art. Anyone who pursues it with modern lenses is already lost.

 

So, my friend, you don´t know much about modern wedding photography, as exactly that is the trent now.

 

jose villa, jonas peterson (two top guys of the business) and thousends more...

 

 

But hey, you are all right, they use Nikons and Canons and yes, film Contax with Zeiss lenses,

 

but not Leicas, because they are not built to shoot into the sun. (:

 

 

 

I wrote to Leica, with the pics attached, let´s see what they say, ah wait, we know all ready:

 

don´t do that.

 

 

Heiko

 

Ridiculous. Otto Schulz, Riccis Valledares, myself, a ton of other people on here, all use Leicas, either film or M9s.We shoot against the light (not always).

 

And any Canon shooter with an 85 1.2L or 35 1.4 faces exactly the same issues. As for Nikon, the files are softer and less exposed for a given ISO (and darker with the 28 you're using).

[pico]

Back-light, soft focus is a lost art. Anyone who pursues it with modern lenses is already lost.

 

So, my friend, you don´t know much about modern wedding photography, as exactly that is the trent now.

 

I know enough about photography to know that a highly corrected lens is not appropriate to get the kind of picture you want.

[jaapv]

So, one carries around a slew of the same expensive focal lengths,

-Marc

I think a Summaron or Color-Skopar hardly qualifies as an expensive lens...

[Jamie Roberts]

 

I know enough about photography to know that a highly corrected lens is not appropriate to get the kind of picture you want.

 

Yes, this is one reason I love the Mandler-era designs, but not to the exclusion of more modern lenses. But IMO the Mandler era lenses are more amenable to the creative use of flare, for example, than some of the newer designs. Even outside of Leica this is true: the difference between an 80 R Lux and the Canon 85 1.2L couldn't be more pronounced from 1.4 to 2.0.

 

At the wide end, the Summicron 28 ASPH is a fabulous "balance" between newer and older philosophies. As is, IMO, the 35 Summilux ASPH, which is just an outstanding lens in all areas (though higher contrast wide open than the 28 Summicron).

 

But I can't believe the FLE version is very much different here from my non-FLE version.

 

In any case, it's not hard to shoot into the light with it on an M9. But you do have to understand the system (exposure and processing) before you try to push it IMO.

[frogfish]

Hm, I learned a lesson here obviously. Thank you all for the input.

Still I want a fast 35, still I want to use the M9 because I love to work with it.

 

I don´t prefer the cheap Nikon, I just didn´t know that the problem was so easy eliminated in post.

 

I like the combination of high contrast, shooting into the sun and overexpose. But to each his own. Of course this is much expected from a lens, but pushing boundaries let to something new.

 

I used the correction offered in Aperture but this turned the artefacts black, not nice in the face.

 

 

Anyway, thank you guys.

 

Heiko

[IWC Doppel]

If you have an understanding secondhand dealer an experiment with something older might be worth a go ?

[Steven]

On 8/7/2012 at 7:24 PM, frogfish said:

Hm, I learned a lesson here obviously. Thank you all for the input.

Still I want a fast 35, still I want to use the M9 because I love to work with it.

 

I don´t prefer the cheap Nikon, I just didn´t know that the problem was so easy eliminated in post.

 

I like the combination of high contrast, shooting into the sun and overexpose. But to each his own. Of course this is much expected from a lens, but pushing boundaries let to something new.

 

I used the correction offered in Aperture but this turned the artefacts black, not nice in the face.

 

 

Anyway, thank you guys.

 

Heiko

I’m curious to know what 35mm lens you’ve been using for the past 8 years! What was you final decision ? Did you grow to love the fle ? Hope you’re well and alive. 

[Erato]

http://metapicz.com/#landing?imgsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.l-camera-forum.com%2Fuploads%2Fmonthly_06_2012%2Fpost-49742-1428688695389.jpg

Nice try, but it seems your measurement or manual setting leads to some unexpected result.

Photographers are often taught to take well-balanced photos that are clear and properly exposed. 

It's great to take the chance and break the rules and explore the possibilities by adapting modern lenses to vintage bodies. But once you bet on it, you should well-understand the limitation of your camera and lenses.

Accurate exposure every time or even perfect exposure implies the key to create a successful photo(or you may want to call it an artwork).
These rules shall make no difference from each camera system at all.
With or without light meter(metering in the viewfinder) shall influence the quality of the RAW files. Due to the accuracy of the measurement, the result might blow your mind sometimes.

Leica modern lenses are designed and optimized with late adoption cameras such as M10 series but M9. Besides, the FLE is more sensitive in many senses even you're using an M10-P or M10-R.

FYR. 
FLE is suitable for dawn, twilight, or evening, and it's perfect for low light circumstances.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Erato

[Erato]

Normally, we mounted vintage lenses on the new camera for reasons.

Edited November 13, 2020 by Erato

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Erato]

8 hours ago, Erato said:

Normally, we mounted vintage lenses on the new camera for reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration

The term "purple fringing" is commonly used in photography, although not all purple fringing can be attributed to chromatic aberration. Similar colored fringing around highlights may also be caused by lens flare. Colored fringing around highlights or dark regions may be due to the receptors for different colors having differing dynamic range or sensitivity – therefore preserving detail in one or two color channels, while "blowing out" or failing to register, in the other channel or channels. On digital cameras, the particular demosaicing algorithm is likely to affect the apparent degree of this problem. Another cause of this fringing is chromatic aberration in the very small microlenses used to collect more light for each CCD pixel; since these lenses are tuned to correctly focus green light, the incorrect focusing of red and blue results in purple fringing around highlights. This is a uniform problem across the frame, and is more of a problem in CCDs with a very small pixel pitch such as those used in compact cameras. Some cameras, such as the Panasonic Lumix series and newer Nikon and Sony DSLRs, feature a processing step specifically designed to remove it.