What can be called as "old glass"?

[Leicaquarters]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since 2010 I regained the Leica feeling I established in the seventies. The M9 as a gift from my wife(!) rekindled the fire of photography with Leica. I own quite a lot of lenses, manufactured during the seventies: for M and SLR.

So where do I start with "old glass"? LTM lenses? Lenses made until 1990? Lenses no longer in production? In short: what is the definition of old glass.

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

Anything before digital coding, I would have thought. Someone might be better informed than me.

[IWC Doppel]

Feels like early ASPH and before to me

[Stealth3kpl]

Pre latest version is my definition, particularly pre-asph.

Pete

[pgk]

In short: what is the definition of old glass.

IMO, 'old glass' refers to lenses which are not as well corrected as their current counterparts, - this can even encompass modern designs which are not produced with technical perfection as an inherent goal.

[algrove]

There are many definitions, but I consider Mandler glass as old, but very good.

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In short: What is the definition of old glass?

There is no agreed-upon definition for "old glass."

 

Have you ever attended a camera swap-meet, or flea market? There, I once made an interesting observation. The older the gear offered, the older the customers are. It seems anyone is attracted most by the gear that was current when they started being interested in photography (which for most hobbyist photographers is their late teens or early twens). So, to most photographers, "old" is what came to market before they bought their first camera.

 

But let's try to get away from that and look at it in an, umm, "objective" way. I'd say current is anything from the Asph era which started in 1994 with the introduction of the Summilux-M 35 mm Asph. Consequently, old are lenses from the '70s and '80s. Very old are lenses from the '50s and '60s. Ancient are screw-mount lenses.

 

That said, one of the lenses I am having an awful lot of fun with is an Elmar 5 cm 1:3.5 uncoated from 1938 on the M9 (via screw-mount-to-M adapter). Laid-back colours and contrast, good sharpness, hardly any chromatic aberrations, very charming rendition.

 

Lens age doesn't matter. If it has "Leitz" or "Leica" on it, you can use it.

[UliWer]

Anything before digital coding, I would have thought. Someone might be better informed than me.

 

Well, out of the present catalogue the 2/28 asph, 2/35 asph, 2/50, 1,4/50 asph., 2/75 apo-asph., 2/90 apo-asph., 4/90 and 3,4/135 Apo were introduced before "digital coding" - some of them long times ago. You might add the 2,8/21 asph., 2,8/24 asph, 1,4/35 asph (1. version), 2,8/50 Elmar-M, 2,8/90 Elmarit-M and the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar which havn't been out of the catalogue for long. All those are "old glass"?

 

One might perhaps look for another definition relied to "digital coding": those lenses which are not listed in the menu of the M9 for manual setting of lens recognition and which are not coded in new production are "old glass". Though this would be arbitrary.

 

Perhaps you could say those lenses are "old glass" which you use for a special look, you can't achieve with new glass. Though we might try, which is the "old look" by posting some examples of old or new lenses without telling which is which - and I am sure most guesses would be wrong.

 

My personal definition would be: lenses, which have no more focal-length than 50mm and have round focussing tabs of chrome, are old. And those are old, which were produced before f/2.8 became a Leitz standard.

 

Just incidentially this definition might be shortened to: Lenses which are at least as old as I am, are old.

[rramesh]

Would it not refer to lenses which were primarily designed and used for film cameras? Most of the newer lenses from Leica are specifically designed for the lower tolerances of digital cameras.

[pico]

To define Old Glass simply look at the date the first the lenses of that type were made. Older is older! It is that easy. Do not depend upon us or anyone to literally describe the qualities of lenses. You have to use them to understand.

 

Old to me is certainly way before the ASPH designs were made.

.

Use lenses and know. No description, and indeed no puny screen representation will do. Use, enjoy or not.

.

[wda]

Would it not refer to lenses which were primarily designed and used for film cameras? ....

That ties in with my 'pre-6-bit coding' definition.

[philipus]

I guess everyone will have to make up his or her mind about this. I see it on a lens-by-lens basis: anything prior to the currently produced version of a lens is "old glass", though some is older than other, naturally.

[luigi bertolotti]

First of all, compliments to your wife...

 

As a owner of Leica lenses spanning from 1929 to 2007 I agree with the 3-levels definition proposed by 01af ("old" "very old" "ancient" - while the "classic" term imho applies to items that are across the above categories)

 

If one looks at the dates of intro, a possible quick conclusion can be that any lens with a s/n of the 70's is surely an "old" , and lenses introduced after '90 are surely "current" even if no more produced like the Elmarits 21/24 asph.

 

For lenses' lovers, to build a graph with the timings lens-by-lens (and variants of the same) is a pleasant exercise...

[TomB_tx]

I guess everyone will have to make up his or her mind about this. I see it on a lens-by-lens basis: anything prior to the currently produced version of a lens is "old glass", though some is older than other, naturally.

How about the current production Summicron I just bought this year? It's still a 1979 optical design. Perhaps it wasn't "Old Glass" until the Summicron Asph was announced?

[pgk]

As a owner of Leica lenses spanning from 1929 to 2007 I agree with the 3-levels definition proposed by 01af ("old" "very old" "ancient" - while the "classic" term imho applies to items that are across the above categories)

I really like this idea of 'classic' lenses. It too though is variable as some 'classic' lenses may perform poorly but have led onto better designs. Other such as the 35/1.4 Summilux represent a pinnacle of their time - even though it performs poorly wide open by today's standards.

 

So could we have a thread of nominations for 'classic' glass (Leica and non-Leica).....?

[philipus]

How about the current production Summicron I just bought this year? It's still a 1979 optical design. Perhaps it wasn't "Old Glass" until the Summicron Asph was announced?

 

Hi Tom,

Yes, that's how I would see it, from a categorisation point of view, to the extent such a categorisation is important. There are probably many more examples (the previous Noctilux springs to mind as a lens that was comparably recently overtaken by a new design but which was available for a long time).

 

What is more important, though, than categorising lenses this way is to compare their rendering. That has obviously been affected by the contemporaneous state of optical design at the time of the design of a particular lens, coupled with particular desires of the lens designers (cf the Summitar being introduced in response to photographers' demands for higher colour fidelity due to greater use of colour film, like Kodachrome). Mandler designs vs other etc etc.

 

When building a lens collection rendering is, imho, a more important consideration than whether a lens is old, oldish, newish or new; naturally taken together with one's own preferences regarding the results of a particular lens.

[Dirk Mandeville]

Nice discussion. Just to throw another wrench in the works . . . how does the term "vintage" fit into the mix? To me (and this is entirely subjective), lenses currently being produced are current, anything produced prior to those lenses but within the last thirty years is recent, anything produced before that but within the last sixty years is old (or classic, if you prefer), and anything produced over sixty years ago is vintage. I do agree that for me, classic refers more to lens rendering than specifically to age of the lens. However, I would prefer a better term than "old" for lenses produced from the fifties through the seventies, and classic sounds pretty good. Again, all of this is just subjective categorization on my part.

[jaques]

way back in 1998 I rented a shop with attached house from an 85 year old landlord. The property was part of a small real estate empire the landlords family had built around a timber mill over more than 100 years. He had been running the mill himself since the 1930's. When he showed me the kitchen at the property he pointed to the stove approvingly and said "That's a good new modern stove: we put that in in the 60's".

 

To him a stove that was made before I was born was a nice new modern one. To me it was a classic vintage 60's stove.

 

It seems to me there is only one clear way to define 'old glass'- look to 'the view through older glass' thread: when you find the most recently produced lens featured in that thread: you will have the cut off date for old to new glass.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Leicaquarters]

Dear members of the Forum

I would like to thank all of you who read my thread and gave your idea about the expression “old glass”. Asking the questiong: what is old glass? was inspired by the thread “the view through older glas”. Jacques made a point right there. My wife was very charmed by Luigi’s remark! :)

Many of you have a different interpretation of it: pre-asph, Mandler-type, focal length, coated vs uncoated, coded or uncoded. Anyhow, each view imho is true.

The first time you use your new aquired equipment you start to discover its characteristics. And at a certain point they get familiar and predictable; sometimes they surprise you with an unexpected result. Over the years it becomes like a friend and the pictures you made with it become fine souvenirs. Like a bottle of wine who ages throughout the years and gets better. Dirk used the word vintage. And as we are human, we will have different tastes and favourites. But we have the Forum to discuss and share our expiriences and views.

The lenses of this digital age are like new kids on the block. But sooner or later these lenses will also be looked at as “old glass”.

Thank you all for your honest and clear answers!

 

Peter

[luigi bertolotti]

I really like this idea of 'classic' lenses. It too though is variable as some 'classic' lenses may perform poorly but have led onto better designs. Other such as the 35/1.4 Summilux represent a pinnacle of their time - even though it performs poorly wide open by today's standards.

 

So could we have a thread of nominations for 'classic' glass (Leica and non-Leica).....?

 

It could be a fine exercise, in which one can expect many differentiated evaluations... just to give some ideas of mine :

 

Elmar 5 cm f 3,5 IS a classic and think that this is generally accepted

Summicron 90 is not, Tele Elmarit 90 is

Elmar 135 is not, Tele Elmar 135 is

Super Angulon 21 3,4 is, Elmarit 21 2,8 is not

Summicron 50 is, Xenon 50 is not

... and so on...

... and I have the curios impression that no 28 is considered a "classic" , but the Summicron 28 can be on the way to become.