Summilux what for?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I shoot 0.95 to f2 mainly.

 

It's about just practice. Lots of practice.

 

its also about taste. I have shot a lot with shallow dof in the past but for some reason(which I dont know) I now prefer to have more dof in most of my images.

[Advertisement]

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

[pfhrased]

I got the 35 1.4 because I needed the extra stop on my M8.2.

I got the 50 1.4 with the M9-P because I prefer how it renders.

 

I prefer both of them over summicrons for landscape because of the sunstars. (I take a lot of night shots, and it's just more pleasing.)

[Michael-IIIf]

I have the Summilux 75.

 

The problem is you end up taking EVERY shot at 1.4 because otherwise you feel silly carrying the extra weight and cost.

 

[pgk]

About the only aperture I rarely use on any of my lenses is its minimum - I generally shoot from wide open to about f/11ish but rarely smaller. f/1.4 simply adds versatility.

[Paul J]

Shooting wide open does impose a certain feel on a photo which sometimes is inappropriate. I do, at times, love shooting stopped down too.

[Ulev]

Photography is all about "light" and "creativity".

 

A Summilux will offer you more then a Summicron.

( NOT saying you can't be creative with a Summicron, Summarit ... ! )

 

Every stop of light comes with a price, and often, along with that extra stop, comes a lens that's built better and renders in a nicer way.

 

You might not need that extra stop of light ....

Me ? Constantly :-)

 

A Summilux leaves you the option to shoot wide open or select f2, f2.8 ...

A Summicron or elmarit doesn't leave you that option.

As simple as that.

 

Buy the fastest lens you can afford ( and carry !!) :-)

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Only fast lens I use is the Summilux 50 mm (last version). And with 1,4 I use it not so often, but sometimes it is very useful - i.e. when I want a soft background an the distance between main subject and background is too low to achieve this without aperture wide open. So for me it depends on the situation and the subject. For landscapes, architecture i.e. I normally dont use lenses wide open and I want a high DOF, therefore I do not need fast ones for wide angle lenses. And regarding low light photography the fast lenses are not so much important for me, since I own a M 240 which allows higher ISOs than my former M 9. But here an example, where the use of aperture wide open made sense, to create a soft background:

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!

[philipus]

Forgive me for being contrarian but excessive use of the widest apertures is tiring and uninventive. At best it looks just like every other bokeh addict's image, but at worst it looks terrible because photographer failed to nail the focus by 1mm.

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I like having 1.4 on my lenses and as someone who rarelly shoots faster than Portra 800 I need to use it particularly in darker surroundings. But for artistically pleasing portraits stopping down just a little bit will have a very positive impact on the image. If nothing else it will remove the impression that the subject is peering out of a blurry haze.

[Gerard]

Philipus; that is, imho, just as sweeping a statement as saying excessive use of small apertures is boring and shows a lack of creative thought.

 

I have many images that I feel would simply not create the same emotion if they had been shot at a wider aperture.

 

For instance... http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/people/302021-love-autumn.html

 

I hope I need say little about this to communicate what I am talking about.

 

PS: I'm not saying that f1.4 is essential, here, I'm just saying it can be used to great effect.

[algrove]

I think pdk nailed it when he said "f1.4 simply adds versatility."

 

That said-with the new M, one does have the ability of using higher ISO's and therefore not needing 1.4 over 2.0 like in the past except for photographic expression.

[250swb]

Philipus; that is, imho, just as sweeping a statement as saying excessive use of small apertures is boring and shows a lack of creative thought.

.

 

I'd be willing to bet that far more great photographs have been made at f/8 than f/1.4 (or whatever the widest average aperture is in any given era). This is not accidental or people being lazy and uncreative, indeed they are removing any signature of the camera and relying entirely on their own vision and creativity instead of cute tricks of the lens.

 

I think the point being made is that wide apertures are often, very often, used as a substitute for creativity because it immediately makes a boring image look vaguely arty. We've all seen it, even tried it at times, plonk something close up in the frame, open the aperture up wide and bingo! the receding 'picket fence syndrome' has struck again! I'm sorry, but picket fences, and even ice cream, are not automatically made any more interesting by being shot with a wide aperture.

 

Steve

[CalArts 99]

I'd be willing to bet that far more great photographs have been made at f/8 than f/1.4 (or whatever the widest average aperture is in any given era). This is not accidental or people being lazy and uncreative, indeed they are removing any signature of the camera and relying entirely on their own vision and creativity instead of cute tricks of the lens.

 

I think the point being made is that wide apertures are often, very often, used as a substitute for creativity because it immediately makes a boring image look vaguely arty. We've all seen it, even tried it at times, plonk something close up in the frame, open the aperture up wide and bingo! the receding 'picket fence syndrome' has struck again! I'm sorry, but picket fences, and even ice cream, are not automatically made any more interesting by being shot with a wide aperture.

 

This bokeh business is trendy right now. And so is using extreme wide angle lenses. These sorts of things go in and out of vogue among hobbyist photographers. And now with the internet as the world's photo album it all becomes a lot more apparent.

 

"Bokeh" was never part of the vocabulary when I was in art school. And neither was "glass." In fact, the only thing that was part of the vocabulary was the context of the image itself. Lenses, cameras, bokeh, resolution was never really discussed and the heated dialogues were over the meaning and purpose of the image.

 

As you say, "removing the signature" and "relying on vision" is apparent when viewing history's most compelling images (i.e., those images that have staying power over time.) I remember Winogrand saying he can't use a lens wider than 28mm because any wider and the lens becomes apparent in the image: "In the end, those pictures wind up being primarily about what the lens is doing."

 

And that's a problem. The image ends up being what the lens is doing and can be a distraction from what the image should doing. These sorts of "vaguely arty" and "cute tricks" can often end up taking away from the content and context of the image. They risk reducing an image to only its surface.

[Paul J]

Any bland and boring photo will always be bland boring no matter the aperture.

 

For me that is the only thing that ever makes sense from this discussion when it arises week after week.

 

I see a hell of a lot of bland boring shots taken wide open. I also see a hell of a lot of bland and boring shots taken stopped down too. If anyone thinks that some function lens, regardless off what that is, is gives them an interesting and relevant photo then they are only fooling themselves. It's not the lens it's the content. Once you have that then you can dress it how you want and need.

 

Wide apertures narrow the focus, they also narrow the chances of an interesting photo. It's fair to say the effect is a familiar one that has become cliched. That's not to say it can't be used at the right time, at the right place, for the right reason, to say the right thing.

 

There are NO templates, no rights and wrongs. It's just about you and your photos. Same as anything in art, the answer always lies in one quick question: What is your reason to use it?

 

I sure have my reasons and am really not bothered by any one else's opinions on them.

[Paul J]

This is not accidental or people being lazy and uncreative, indeed they are removing any signature of the camera and relying entirely on their own vision and creativity instead of cute tricks of the lens.

 

Relying on tricks of a lens will never make a great photo. I personally can't stand these kind of photos.

 

However, when a great photo can be made and the trick is used on purpose, it complements the message, adds to it like an extended vocabulary, then it becomes a technique, an aesthetic, part of a message. It makes even more sense and has the potential to make even more impact. That's when a photo becomes art, no matter what that technique may be.

[mmradman]

 

..."Bokeh" was never part of the vocabulary when I was in art school. And neither was "glass." In fact, the only thing that was part of the vocabulary was the context of the image itself. Lenses, cameras, bokeh, resolution was never really discussed and the heated dialogues were over the meaning and purpose of the image....

 

 

All true, creation of internet age & fuelled by manufacturers via blogging gurus.

[Fang]

For shooting in low light situations.

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!

[steveclem]

Yeah, bokeh wasn't a term I heard at all 20 years back. Now it is the word if you believe half of what you read.

But then one forum members cine lens posts enrich the forum using just that.

[Stealth3kpl]

I like the square, metal turret hoods.

Pete

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tomasis7]

1.4 is useless for 90% photographers.

 

f2.5 Summarit is no issue for night shooting. Plenty of iso on leica camers.

 

I made 50mm 2.5 as my main lens. I saved 10 000 pounds :D:D

 

In return I become much better photographer!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm one of those pesky wedding photographers who have made ultra thin DOF fashionable. When you work in lots of ultra dim receptions and small messy rooms with peeling paint and a bride getting ready, you use every tool in the bag to turn a bad location into a saleable photograph.

 

It's all well and good to be one of the "I don't want the camera to be part of the image crowd" but when you shoot where I do you'll think that even 1.4 is too much DOF some days. Anyway, I think that's wrong. Even at f8 and be there the camera leaves its mark, whether it be by lens corner sharpness, colour rendition or format size.

 

Lastly why does everyone only quote the DOF of a 1.4 lens at minimum focus distance? At 10 meters there's plenty of DOF for a group shot with a nice softeneing of the unimportant or distracting background.

 

Gordon