437 replies to this topic

[jaapv]

Advertisement (Gone after free registration)

I copied some older posts from other threads into this one


Post your experiences with old lenses here.

Edited by jaapv, 04 December 2012 - 18:36.

[jaapv]

Canon 35/2.8 1958/59
Sharp, lowish contrast, about par with the Summicron 35 iii. (ISO 2000)

Attached Files

•  L9036067.jpg   329.47KB   4211 downloads
•  L9036067-2.jpg   327.26KB   4150 downloads

Edited by jaapv, 01 December 2012 - 19:24.

[michali]

Monochrom & Jupiter3 50mm f1.5 (1962 mod.) images 1-3
Last image is with Jupiter12 35mm f2.8 (1957 model- same vintage as me).

I just love the way the older lenses render on the Monochrom!
The newer lenses while being technologically "superior" etc. are just too clinically sharp when combined with the Monochrom IMO.
So as not to hijack Jaap's thread, I'll post some comparisons on another thread.

Jupiter 50mm
 L1000321 lf.jpg   240.16KB   4049 downloads

Jupiter 50mm
 BEVERLY L1000326 LF.jpg   194.17KB   3988 downloads

Jupiter 50mm
 L1000314 LF.jpg   194.07KB   3957 downloads

Jupiter 35mm
 L1000512 lf.jpg   163.52KB   3971 downloads

[rickp13]

it's not very old by leica standards, but a 1982 75mm summilux seems to work ok on the MM. (iso 400, f2)

thanks for starting this thread, jaap

greetings from hamburg

rick

Attached Files

•  L1080141a.jpg   281.38KB   3962 downloads

[jaapv]

Elmarit 90 2.8 1961, @ f4
Simply an excellent lens, somewhat lower contrast than a more modern one.



 aaaaac (1).jpg   196.5KB   3860 downloads



 aaaaa.jpg   217.8KB   3823 downloads



 IMG_20121201_6082.jpg   377.21KB   3868 downloads

Edited by jaapv, 02 December 2012 - 01:34.

[Tonki-M]

i love the Jupiter3 rendering. excellent images. please continue on...at some point (if not now) you're going to convince me to get the MM

[jaapv]

Agree. I'll get out my Summarit.

[michali]

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 5cm f1.5 LTM (1950 model).
(The Jupiter3 50mm is a clone of this CZ Sonnar).


Ronaldo-
 L1001035 Ronaldo.jpg   106.02KB   3784 downloads

[tobey bilek]

They work as well as they did on film. Problem is digi is more visually sensitive to flare from light sources just outside or in the frame. Well not more, but what we had to accept in the past we may not accept now.

If you got good pics on film, it will make good pics on MM providing the focus is set to match the camera.

In my opinion, low contrast is good because it can always be raised some, but it is hard to get rid of it if there is too much just like film.

Naturally they will not be as sharp as a modern lens at wide stops.

[jcrutcher]

MM with 50mm Cron Version 2 fixed. Orange filter also.


L1000160.jpg by rootbeer2004, on Flickr

[jaapv]

They work as well as they did on film. Problem is digi is more visually sensitive to flare from light sources just outside or in the frame. Well not more, but what we had to accept in the past we may not accept now.

If you got good pics on film, it will make good pics on MM providing the focus is set to match the camera.

In my opinion, low contrast is good because it can always be raised some, but it is hard to get rid of it if there is too much just like film.

Naturally they will not be as sharp as a modern lens at wide stops.

Without having an explanation, I get the impression old lenses perform better on the MM than they do on the M9 or film.

[01af]

[schmal]Without having an explanation, I get the impression old lenses perform better on the M Monochrom than they do on the M9 or film.[/schmal]

The explanation is very simple: The M Monochrom has better resolution than M9 or film, and it shows—with any lens. As I always keep saying ... :cool:

[jcrutcher]

I loaded up the 8.5cm Summarex on the mono. Shot wide open, ISO 640


Summarex 8.5CM by rootbeer2004, on Flickr

100% crop

100 % crop by rootbeer2004, on Flickr


F4.0

Summarex 8.5CM by rootbeer2004, on Flickr

[rickp13]

sorry, forgot the 100% crop, now attached.

Attached Files

•  L1080141b.jpg   266.93KB   3685 downloads

[philipus]

Why make a new thread instead of continuing the "Leica and old glass" thread?

[wattsy]

Without having an explanation, I get the impression old lenses perform better on the MM than they do on the M9 or film.

You are probably right but that statement does come across as a classic piece of 'Jaapism'.

[Paul J]

There is something about older lenses that just translates so well on the Monochrom.

[michali]

Monochrom & Leitz Summar 5cm f2 (1938 model).
Fairly acceptable for a 74 year old lens, shot at f2 & ISO800.

The weather's really lousy today so I'm staying indoors and harassing Ronaldo, my other 2 cats are hiding from me.....

 SUMMAR 1938 L1001049 copy.jpg   243.48KB   1601 downloads

100% crop
 SUMMAR 100%.jpg   168.81KB   1596 downloads

[jaapv]

You are probably right but that statement does come across as a classic piece of 'Jaapism'.

:DWell, if 01AF agrees it must be gospel..

Edited by jaapv, 03 December 2012 - 20:13.

[colint544]

A couple of M Monochrom shots, using my 1969 copy of the 90mm Tele-Elmarit "fat" version 1. Wide open at f2.8, incidentally.

You can clearly see the fabled "glow" on either side of the picture of the band (The Fall, at Glasgow's Arches, for anyone interested), but I quite like it. It's certainly a sharp lens at the centre of the frame, and ever so compact.

Best wishes, all.

Colin

Attached Files

•  L1018685.jpg   84.72KB   1524 downloads
•  L1019168 copy.jpg   189.59KB   1531 downloads