What can be called as "old glass"?

[!Nomad64]

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.

 

I have somewhat slack criteria, so for me whatever is not anymore in production fits into "old glass" definition, aspherical or not.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[Leicaquarters]

I find the idea of Luigi very interesting: in fact there is a lot of knowledge about lenses in the forum and simultaniously a lot of experience. Some lenses he mentions are already "old glass" by the quality of pictures they delivered in the past.

And I think already a certain consensus exists in the Forum to support and enlarge this list. Any suggestions: the Noctilux 1.2? Summaron 2.8/35mm? Telyt 4/200mm second version?

 

Peter

[TomB_tx]

I guess I'm less critical than most on the forum. I have a hard time calling the M lenses I bought new in 68-70 "old glass" because I'm satisfied with them to this day. I'd call "old glass" lens designs that were sold before the M3 was introduced. But then, being from the 1940s myself, I'm just old.

[pgk]

I find the idea of Luigi very interesting: in fact there is a lot of knowledge about lenses in the forum and simultaniously a lot of experience. Some lenses he mentions are already "old glass" by the quality of pictures they delivered in the past.

And I think already a certain consensus exists in the Forum to support and enlarge this list. Any suggestions: the Noctilux 1.2? Summaron 2.8/35mm? Telyt 4/200mm second version?

 

Peter

I'm not so sure about 'old' but a list of 'classic' lenses would be interesting. Not sure that any of the above would make it though, because, interesting as the 1.2 Noctilux is, in my book its less of a working lens than esoteric collectable and I don't consider that collectability replaces usability. The 35mm Summaron has stiff competition from the 35mm Summicrons which are IMHO the real 35mm classics along with the pre-asph Summilux, and I'm uncertain about the Telyt but have no direct experience.

 

If I had to come up with my own shortlist it would include the 21mm f/3.4 Super-Angulon, the 35mm f/1.4 Summilux pre-aspheric, the 50mm f/1.4 pre-aspheric and aspheric, the 90mm Elmarit-M. Other contenders might include the 75mm Summilux, but the list cannot be too long and would probably be biased yowards lenses that list suggesters have used themselves (inevitably).

 

Perhaps it would be worth determining a list of attributes which a lens must fulfill in order to make it onto the list.....?

[luigi bertolotti]

I find the idea of Luigi very interesting: in fact there is a lot of knowledge about lenses in the forum and simultaniously a lot of experience. Some lenses he mentions are already "old glass" by the quality of pictures they delivered in the past.

And I think already a certain consensus exists in the Forum to support and enlarge this list. Any suggestions: the Noctilux 1.2? Summaron 2.8/35mm? Telyt 4/200mm second version?

 

Peter

 

My ideas on the topics... :

 

Noctilux 1,2 is an "old" , and not a "classic" (too exoteric to have this status)

Summaron 2,8 35 is imho a "very old" but the real "classic" is the 3,5 version

Telyt 4/200 is "old" AND "classic"

 

Thinking of my collection... ... Hektor 7,3 and Alpine Elmar 10,5 are absolutely "ancient" and not "classic", while the Thambar 9 is both.

[farnz]

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 question: what is old glass? was inspired by the thread “the view through older glass”. ...

I am the original poster in 'The view through older glass' thread and I purposely kept my definition of 'older glass' wide and inclusive to encourage members to post their (wonderful) pictures and to avoid the hand-wringing, dissection, and disagreement that can accompany such a subjective topic. My definition was simply 'not the current model', and if you think about it I hope you will understand why. I don't, of course, pretend that it is the only definition or even a good one but I think it is one that fulfils its purpose.

 

Thank you (all) for holding the discussion here and not in 'The view through older glass' thread because it would have derailed the thread and detracted from the exceptional examples that are posted there.

 

Pete.