latest lenses with film?

[Firefly]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having recently returned to the Leica fold with an MP and a 50mm Cron v4 I am thinking of getting further lenses.

I am wondering if in real terms there will be much difference in picture quality between say a 35mm Cron v4 and the later ASPH, also the same regarding the v4 versus ASPH 28mm Elmarit as my budget is not unlimited I am looking for an effective use of what I do have available, I am strictly an amateur and do not envisage ever trying to sell any pictures or make any huge enlargements.

A further curveball is the Tri Elmar or MATE as it seems to be known as, it does tick many boxes for me but as the light in the UK is not always the best I am wondering if the maximum aperture is somewhat limiting plus it seems to have a bit of a reputation for fragility coupled to expensive repair, again are these points real or imagined?

I know that I can purchase far cheaper glass from other manufacturers but I would rather stick to Leica.

Real world advice please, many thanks Rob

[Jager]

Pretty much any of the later Leica lenses (ASPH, floating elements, etc.) will be better corrected than their forbears. They'll generally provide slightly cleaner images.

 

What you lose are some of those mystical qualities of old. Remember all the talk back in the day of the elusive Leica 'glow?' Well that was all down to imperfections in the optics. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

 

I spend a lot of time with the 50 APO, arguably the nonpareil of modern day lens design. I've said several times it's a to-die-for lens. And it is. Even in its greatness, though, it cedes something to its more conventional predecessor.

 

Which is a roundabout way of saying that they're all good. All Leica lenses bring their own set of qualities, their own unique signature. There's a place in the paint box for each.

 

Welcome back...

[philipus]

Hi Rob

 

I am also a film-only M photographer and have a mix of current and older lenses. I believe that the lenses will render similarly regardless of the medium used. So if a current aspherical renders contrasty and clinically (as seems to be the major criticism/benefit of these lenses) on digital then it will do so on film too. Evidently the medium will impose its own effects on the image but it is possible on film to see the differences between past and current lenses just like it is on digital. And, of course, sharp image will be sharp on both digital and film, all subject to the limitations of the medium of course, for instance in terms of resolving ability (though I am not sure that's the right term in this context). Someone more knowledgeable than I will be able to tell you to which extent the medium used will affect the particular character of older and newer lenses.

 

I can't advise on old vs new lenses in the 28 and 35mm focal lenths as I only have one in each - the 2,8cm Hektor (very cool lens, imho) and the 35 Summilux FLE, and I've never used the MATE though I share your concern regarding the slow widest aperture with respect to film use.

 

However in the 50 and 90 mm focal lengths I have both newer and older lenses. I have a pre-asph 50 Summilux and the current Asph plus a Summitar and a v3 Summicron. They all render slightly differently, particularly at the widest end of the aperture scale, where the aberrations (or lack thereof) are the most (in)visible. So the answer to the question of whether one goes for current or older lenses, largely speaking, becomes a question of preference of style. I say "largely speaking" because among the 50s I have, the 50 Asph has strengths that the other lenses do not. It is extremely flare resistant, for instance, something one can't say of a Summitar. Very often I like having such strengths in a lens because I dislike having images ruined by veiling flare or just looking "uncrisp" (to use a technical term haha). That said also the 50 Summicron is very good in terms of flare resistance with the hood deployed. I have shot it with the sun in the middle of the frame or just outside and it still produces clear images.

 

Among 90mm I have the Elmarit-M and a 1930s 9cm Elmar. There have evidently been big leaps in optical theory since the Elmar but it still provides very nice images, even though they do not (at all) reach the sharpness of the Elmarit-M. The latter, I believe, is also recognised as one of the best bang for the buck 90mm lenses out there (and prices seem to be dropping somewhat, yay). It is an incredible performer in my view. Then again, the thin Tele-Elmar is also supposed to be a great lens.

 

While one could feel that it is "sufficient" for film to use older lenses, I have decided to invest in - some - current lenses because I like how they portray the world, crisp and clear just like we see it around ourselves but with the added beauty of grain. That being said, I love older lenses and believe that if one were to select only pre-current lenses one would be able to put together a very competent kit indeed.

 

Speaking of non-Leica lenses - I have also had such lenses for my Ms, including Voigtländer, Canon and Nikon. In particular Voigtländer lenses are very good value for money and render, to my eyes, in a modern/current way. I used the 35mm CV Skopar a lot to try out the focal length and was very impressed with the lens. I ultimately sold it because I found f2.5 too slow for indoor use. The Canon and Nikon lenses I had were older screw mounts and rendered in a more classical way. I eventually sold them because they were large and heavy and I realised that one aspect I particularly like of Leica lenses is their generally smaller form factor.

 

 

 

Hope this helps some.

Philip