50mm apo and MM

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

does the 50mm apo render the same as other modern asph lenses on the MM?

 

If I do not like the rendering of the 35mm fle and 50 asph paired with my MM (too sterile, too sharp, etc), is it safe to say that the 50mm apo would render the same?

[jip]

Yes I think it is safe to assume you'll find the 50 APO too sharp/clean/sterille too

[thighslapper]

Mr Karbe in his interview about the lens paired with MM referred to the combo as 'lossless'......

 

ie. you get on the recorded image exactly what there is..... with the optical impact of the lens and the processing path to the digital output imparting negligible 'colouration' to the image.

 

if you want to call that sterile...... well that's ok..... 'rendering' that is other than perfect in contrast is a product of lens and camera deficiencies

[algrove]

I use it with my MM often and I do not believe it is too sterile. I would rather have an extremely sharp image to start with and then bur, grain or do whatever to it I want if I fond the rendering too much for my eyes. That said I find the Noctilux f1.0 very nice with the MM too.

[platypus]

Yep, no question about it....the APO 50 paired with the MM is very sharp (sterile?) and the detail is truly amazing. A revelation really!

[250swb]

does the 50mm apo render the same as other modern asph lenses on the MM?

 

If I do not like the rendering of the 35mm fle and 50 asph paired with my MM (too sterile, too sharp, etc), is it safe to say that the 50mm apo would render the same?

 

The answer is what the darkroom was about, and is now what post processing is about, turning the image into what you want it to be. It's often far better to start with a super sharp lens and camera combination which can always be made 'softer' rather than the impossibility of starting with a soft lens that you may wish was 'sharper'.

 

I agree that for my tastes lenses like the 50 Summilux are super sterile with an MM, but not a bad thing if that is what you like, so I'll not argue against it. But I have Photoshop, Silver Efex Pro, and the file an MM produces is one of the most malleable starting points you are likely to find in modern photography. Soften it, change the contrast, change the micro contrast, change the black, mid-tone, and highlights as a whole or individually, add grain,....you get the idea, an APO 50 isn't powerful enough to get in the way.

 

 

Steve

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well put 250swb.

[Bill W]

Yep, no question about it....the APO 50 paired with the MM is very sharp (sterile?) and the detail is truly amazing. A revelation really!

+++1

[menos I M6]

What in theory everyone commenting in favour of using a modern, sharp lens and post processing opposed to getting a certain look with optically inferior vintage optical designs is missing, is that certain characteristics of classic lenses are impossible to imitate with post processing software.

 

It is not, as often stated just an adjustment of contrast and a layer of softening with added grain to taste.

Vintage lenses do have such radically different characteristics, that even trying to emulate their looks in photoshop seems like a daunting task, doomed to failure from the outset.

 

Personally, I have started with Leica cameras by being extremely impressed by the optical quality of their newest and finest lenses (such as the 50/1.4 ASPH), have then gradually developed a different taste in lenses towards older (optically inferior) designs, at some point entirely rejecting modern lenses.

 

I have now build a solid lens lineup with certain favourite vintage lenses and believe, that it is very nice, to mirror such a lens lineup with a modern equivalent of the major focal lengths.

for this reason, I do consider the 50/2 APO a very, very interesting lens.

 

Some of my all-time favourite lenses are: 50/1 Noctilux, 85/1.5 Nikkor, 35/1.8 Nikkor, 100/2 Canon, 50/2 Summicron collapsible, 21/2.8 Avenon LTM.

 

Each of these lenses has certain character, that CANNOT be emulated by post processing (not to talk about the immense waste of time in front of a computer to try to do so, instead of having closest to what you actually want from the time, you import your photos into Lightroom).

 

To the OP, the 50 APO Summicron might be considered the one lens, closest to what you would consider "too sterile, too sharp" in the Leica lens lineup. You would want to really take your time, testing a sample before committing to buying one.

[Paul J]

Personally, I will always have preference for sharp modern lens, soft light and minimal or no post processing.

[250swb]

Each of these lenses has certain character, that CANNOT be emulated by post processing (not to talk about the immense waste of time in front of a computer to try to do so, instead of having closest to what you actually want from the time, you import your photos into Lightroom).

 

I tend to think that I spent far more time in the darkroom than I ever do in front of my computer, and none of it was/is wasted if I can add an extra nuance to the image to make it better. I think not doing so is wasting one's time, especially as you already spent A LOT of time going places to take a snap. It hardly seems balanced that the final image has to be so rushed, it turns photography into a production line rather than a craft.

 

As for the unique character of an old lens you are absolutely right, they can do things post processing cannot achieve. On the other hand I can't honestly say I make photographs to demonstrate a certain lens, I try to make that the last little bit of the equation, not the reason for the photograph. If it matters that a photograph was made with an old Elmar or Noctilux it's a last gasp resort at photo manipulation, this time not on the computer, but by the photographer trying to add some credence to an image. Let the image stand on it's own feet I say, and if it can't do that don't tell me it's made with a Noctilux as if it's going to impress me and make it better.

 

Steve

[menos I M6]

Steve, you got me all wrong there.

 

the immense waste of time in front of a computer to try to do so,…).

 

… referring to trying to emulate a certain character of a lens.

 

NOT to post processing or work in the darkroom.

 

Also, I surely don't propose using certain lenses for presenting their optical traits as a gimmick to a picture.

 

Quite the opposite is what I like about old lenses. There is such a vast selection of different vintage optics, that one can select a certain lens as for their preference of a certain look.

Personally, that means, that I mostly grab o not so perfect lens over a more modern lens, as the look is more close, to my final image.

 

My point is, that is is futile, trying to swap this process for using "the perfect lens" + photoshop to achieve a close homage.

 

As I also mentioned, I do see an application for lenses as the 50/2 APO and have learned over time a lesson to the point, that I am more interested in that lens myself than I have been when I tried a demo when it was released.

[250swb]

 

My point is, that is is futile, trying to swap this process for using "the perfect lens" + photoshop to achieve a close homage.

 

There is no reason you need to create a homage to a lens at all, I suggested things like softening the image, changing the contrast etc, adding character, but it doesn't have to mimic an Elmar or anything else, it is a fictional lens in your brain. While there are a wide variety of lenses with 'character' there is also an infinite number of ways to mess about with the image in Photoshop, why should one method be better than the other if the end result is the important thing?

 

Steve

[menos I M6]

… because certain characteristics

CANNOT be emulated by post processing

and spending time on the computer is less efficient and to some people (myself) less desirable than spending that time doing other things, if a certain lens can give you that certain look you desire to begin with.

 

Here are some characteristic looks, that look so different due to the very different 50mm lenses used.

I could not imagine myself hacking away in photoshop, to make a 50/2 APO look this way:

 

50mm Sonnar (50/1.4 Nikkor LTM):

portrait - Nikkor-S.C 5cm f1.4 - contrast handling by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

50/0.95 Canon RF lens:

The Bund at f0.95 | portrait by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

50/2 Leitz Summitar LTM:

portrait - young woman with glasses by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

50/1 Noctilux:

portrait - JC - desk looking up by teknopunk.com, on Flickr

 

 

Now these might be debatable and their looks a matter of subjective taste, but each of these shots displays a very unique imaging character of the respective lens.

 

Of course are all these lenses in all respects optically inferior to the 50/2 APO, but the point is, do you order a bowl of hot water in a restaurant and bring your own chicken and herbs or do you order the soup, you feel like and prefer to add a little salt per taste?