New article on overgaard.dk - "Leica 75mm Summilux-M f/1.4"

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Olav/01af,

 

I just saw your comment today and will have a look at it later when I got time to deal with it. You are always welcome to mail me directly with comments. Many people do that, and usually it helps

 

One thing popped up, and that is why are you so certain production stopped in 2004. Because there are serial numbers allocated after.

 

It might be that you mean that they officially discontinued it in 2004, which might be the case.

 

As for 90mm as portrait lens, when they came out back when, the big thing was the ability to isolate the subject. That was back when the Thambar was also a great new "technology" ... much has changed since (I still struggle to see how the Thambar fits into a modern world with so detailed sensors).

 

The 90mm lenses still have many qualities, but the dof and ability to do a portrait with correct propertions is something a 50mm can also do. It think what I want to do it to have people question if "a 90mm is the portrait lens" is really as true as it once was.

[Overgaard]

Great acticle indeed! Thank you! I Fear this will increase the Lux 75 prices even further

 

Anyway, I've read this several times from Mr Overgaard and having difficulty understanding what it means in practical terms:

 

"If one should sum up very quickly what has been changing in lens design since the 75mm Summilux f/1.4 was born in 1980, it would be that new designs see better in the dark. The distincive difference between older lenses and the new 50mm Summilux-M ASPH f/1.4, Noctilux f/0.95, Leica 35mm Summilux-M ASPH f/1.4 FLE, Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M ASPH f/3.4 and mainly the 50mm APO-Summicron-M ASPH f/2.0 is that they see shadow details more crisp than the human eye.

 

The 75mm Summilux doesn't have this ability to see in the dark, and that is what a future 75mm Summilux-M ASPH f/1.4 would mainly improve "

 

 

I own the SEM 21 and Lux 50 ASPH, but I can't say I've noticed these lenses seeing any better in the dark (shadows) than older non-ASPH lenses with similar aperture. Older lenses have more spherical aberrations which render the images differently. And the new ASPH lenses are sharper and maintain the details slightly better, when pulling shadows on post-processing, but I still don't understand what this means. It simply depends how one exposes the shot, right?

 

I will get into that in an upcoming article on the APO 50mm where I interviewed Peter Karbe. One of the areas he seem to explore is the ability to photograph texture in dark. Or shadows.

 

I'm sure someone could explain the wavelengths and protons of low vs bright light and how that may be a challenge to a lens designer.

 

Lenses has many other qualities than just how crisp they can isolate details in the shadow areas (which I guess is a more correct expression than dark, which one would assume higher ISO would take care of). In dealing with such details other things must also happen in the way the image appear. Because the ideal handling of texture details in shadows, using any lens, would be to change your position so as to get better definition/reflection in them. The actual light conditions one choose to photograph under determine a lot about how crisp an image will look. The photo of the dog in this thread is a great example of a crisp image.

 

Karbe talks a different language than I do, and somehow it makes sense. So I hope to clarify what it is that he find intersting in current and future lens design - as I understood it.

[01af]

When you think that a photograph of a building with an 18 mm on an M8 gives the same idea as a 24 mm on an M9 you'll be disappointed.

No, you won't. Because an 18 mm on an M8 does give the same idea as a 24 mm on an M9 (or on any 35-mm full-frame camera).

 

 

The oblique lines will be much stronger with the 18 on the M8 as well as on the M9 than with the 24 on any sensor format.

No, they won't. I shall repeat it once again: Perspective—which includes the effect of oblique lines—is not a property of the focal length. It's a property of your point of view.

[luigi bertolotti]

When you think that a photograph of a building with an18mm on an M8 gives the same idea as a 24 on an M9 you'll be disappointed. The oblique lines will be much stronger with the 18 on the M8 as well as on the M9 than with the 24 on any sensor format.

 

To be precise... my strong idea is that if you put a 18mm onto a M8, mount it on a tripod, take the picture of a building, then - not moving the tripod - exchange the M8+18 with a M9+24mm ... you get exactly THE SAME IMAGE, apart sensor's differences.

Maybe, if you have a long horizontal edge in the frontage of the buliding, and the 18 is a modest quality old lens, while the 24 is a modern excellent lens, you can observe a more appreciable curvature in the line of the 18mm picture, towards the right and left border of the frame.

[01af]

One thing popped up, and that is why are you so certain production stopped in 2004. Because there are serial numbers allocated after.

 

It might be that you mean that they officially discontinued it in 2004, which might be the case.

No, I am not absolutely certain. I am mostly referring to Erwin Puts' Leica Compendium which says the Summilux-M 75 mm was produced from 1980 to 2004.

 

On the other hand, according to the same author's Leica Pocket Guide there was a set of 200 serial numbers allocated for the Summilux-M 75 mm in 2005 ... which may or may not mean they were actually produced. If they were produced in or after 2005 then this would mean that there was a short period when the Summilux-M 75 mm and the Apo-Summicron-M 75 mm Asph both were in current production ... which I consider unlikely (albeit not impossible).

 

I own a Summilux-M 75 mm with a serial number allocated in 2004 which came in a black-and-silver cardboard box with an imprint on it saying that the lens inside is 6-bit-coded. The black-and-silver boxes as well as the 6-bit codes were introduced in 2006; prior to that, no 6-bit codes, and the boxes used to be white.

 

I was told that my lens was really made in 2004, uncoded. Then it obviously sat unsold in Leica's stock or on a dealer's shelf in a white box for about two years. Then it went back to the factory and got coded and re-packaged in a new box—this was not unusual back in 2006. Then it was sold to the original owner (not me—I am the third owner, and I don't plan to sell it anytime soon).

 

Anyway ... the black-and-silver box and the factory-coded bayonet flange may lead to the false perception that these lenses were made at least until 2006. But it isn't necessarily so, because older lenses which weren't sold until 2006 got their 6-bit codes retrofitted and re-packaged in new boxes so to the customer they would appear newer than they actually are.

 

 

As for 90 mm as portrait lens, when they came out back when, the big thing was the ability to isolate the subject.

As far as I can tell, the big thing was the ability to shoot the same subject from another distance which leads to a different perspective.

 

 

That was back when the Thambar was also a great new "technology" ...

The Thambar's point was portraiture in a pictorial style. The spot filter that came with it was supposed to obscure the central rays which would give best sharpness, so the picture would be formed from edge rays only which have more residual spheric aberrations, leading to a softer picture.

 

It also leads to a horrendous background bokeh, just like catadioptric lenses—which proves that subject isolation and beautiful bokeh was not a big thing in photographers' minds back then.

 

 

(I still struggle to see how the Thambar fits into a modern world with so detailed sensors).

Huh!? Didn't you say that we want lenses that render beautiful pictures rather than technically perfect pictures?

 

 

The 90 mm lenses still have many qualities, but the depth-of-field and ability to do a portrait with correct proportions is something a 50 mm can also do.

If you shoot a head-only portrait with a 50 mm lens on a 35-mm-format camera then you won't get nice proportions. The sitter's face will look distorted, with a nose too big and ears too small. To avoid this, you'd have to step back and then (1) crop the image, or (2) include some environment in your picture, or (3) use a short telephoto lens.

 

All in all, you are paying way too much attention to the depth-of-field thing which is a modern hype more than anything else. Sure, it is a point, but not the most significant one. The most-important thing is to see how distance, focal length, image format, field-of-view, and perspective relate to each other ... in portraiture as well as in other fields.

[Paul J]

Olaf strikes again with an elaborate slither of something that is somewhat relevant based mostly on semantics, some inconsequential fact and a by-the-book opinion stated as rules and fact which I happen to find boring and entirely irrelevant to modern photography. It's always an amusing read at least.

 

While true (i did bite my tongue at first), it is not really all that important to a photographer making photographs and while I agree that article could certainly do with an edit for the OCD, it's pretty easy to "see" what Thorsten is trying to say, semantics aside. That a wide open 75mm Summilux appears quite similar to a 50mm Noctilux when you stand back a bit.

 

But hey, when someone is wrong you best tell the world, right? It's serious business this.

 

Coming here, it's easy to forget what a camera is actually for. Photography.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I won't get into the rest of the discussion - but historically the choice of a moderate tele lens for portrait photography has always been about perspective and distortion. The modern fad of shallow DOF is a side-effect.

See for instance: Laney and Richter: Leica Objektive in der Praxis, (transl) Lanterna Magika Verlag 1993.

[Jeff S]

While true (i did bite my tongue at first), it is not really all that important to a photographer making photographs...

 

Without debating your other points, or getting into semantics, I do think that a basic understanding of the different effects resulting from backing up, versus switching focal lengths, or switching to a 'cropped' camera, would not only improve some people's photos (e.g., the relationship of objects near and far), but might also save a heck of a lot of money spent unnecessarily on lenses or cameras….seriously.

 

The post above on 18 vs 24 mm lenses is one example. I read another thread recently where the poster thought it best to carry both an M8 and an M9 to double his viewing options, without recognizing that his M9 already contained the potential for various cropped fields of view, comparable to the M8.

 

That may not help anyone make better pics, but it might help them better understand how their gear allows them to 'see', and in turn save some money.

 

Jeff

[TonyField]

...The 90mm lenses still have many qualities, but the dof and ability to do a portrait with correct propertions is something a 50mm can also do. It think what I want to do it to have people question if "a 90mm is the portrait lens" is really as true as it once was.

Any lens appropriately used can deliver images with suitable dof and proportions (when appropriately processed). In the Leica world, superb portraits have been taken with lenses in the 35mm to 135mm range (and even wider or longer) However, on the whole, the desirability of the 90mm focal length on a Leica is as true today as it always was.

 

With this in mind, the very best lens for portraits is that lens that is attached to your camera. I have many appropriate portraits with lenses from 24 to 300 mm although most of them tend to be in the 35 to 100 mm range.

 

Your article on the 75mm lenses was quite entertaining ... however, it might be useful to correct all of the obvious technical errors in your descriptions of dof, perspective, etc. As a working "teacher of photography" you should not pass on obviously incorrect information to your students - I am surprised that a professional would do this.

[Overgaard]

By popular demand I have updated the article on 75mm lenses with less factual errors, a few more provokations, a few new pictures, and a long requested overview of my articles in the bottom of the page.

 

leica.overgaard.dk - Thorsten Overgaard's Leica Pages - Leica 75mm Summilux-M f/1.4 samples and article

 

Enjoy and get inspired to take photographs!

 

Thanks for the interest and comments. Hopefully it all makes it better in the end

[otto.f]

 

The post above on 18 vs 24 mm lenses is one example.

 

Jeff

 

My post was wrong indeed but I'm glad that I made a contribution with my mistake late in the evening to the corrections in overgaard's article, because it made the wrong reasoning more explicit. I see that the parts about perspective are gone now

[Rick]

Olaf strikes again with an elaborate slither of something that is somewhat relevant based mostly on semantics, some inconsequential fact and a by-the-book opinion stated as rules and fact which I happen to find boring and entirely irrelevant to modern photography. It's always an amusing read at least.

 

While true (i did bite my tongue at first), it is not really all that important to a photographer making photographs and while I agree that article could certainly do with an edit for the OCD, it's pretty easy to "see" what Thorsten is trying to say, semantics aside. That a wide open 75mm Summilux appears quite similar to a 50mm Noctilux when you stand back a bit.

 

But hey, when someone is wrong you best tell the world, right? It's serious business this.

 

Coming here, it's easy to forget what a camera is actually for. Photography.

 

Paul, do you really want to use words like slither when referring to Olaf?. He is simply stating facts that are true and pointing out the errors of the article in the spirit of trying to help others understand the optics and physical nature of perspective, which is so misunderstood. Yet, it is a basic tenant of photography.

 

His comments have nothing to do with OCD, which as a provider of health care, is an offense reference (but, I do understand that you ignorantly are trying to make a joke of it).

 

I also disagree that everyone understands what Thorsten is try to say, semantics aside. I understand that english isn't Thorsten's first language and I applaud him for doing something that is beyond my ability (mastering a second language). But, I don't think that Thorsten has a complete understanding of perspective and Olaf is just trying to clarify this. Forgive him for being direct.

 

Both, Olaf and Thorsten are strong contributors here in their own unique way, and neither one should be criticized with language like slither, in my opinion.

[01af]

By popular demand I have updated the article on 75 mm lenses with less factual errors ...

A few things have changed for the better but the most prominent factual error are still there. So basically no improvement in the updated article. To the contrary—in the added example of the portrait taken with a 21 mm lens and the ~90 mm (actually, more like 50 mm) crop thereof, the misconception of perspective becomes even more glaringly obvious than before. The pictures clearly show that cropping doesn't change perspective but the text falsely states it did change.

 

The section headlined "How does the 75 mm fit in to it all?" then repeats and engrosses the misconception, just as it did before the update.

 

Surprisingly, at the end of the article (sections "Lenses for portraits" and "Which lenses to have"), there a a few correct statements about perspective which are in contradiction to the rest of the article. I guess a beginner photographer looking for advice and insight will be pretty confused after having read this article.

[Overgaard]

A few things have changed for the better but the most prominent factual error are still there. So basically no improvement in the updated article. To the contrary—in the added example of the portrait taken with a 21 mm lens and the ~90 mm (actually, more like 50 mm) crop thereof, the misconception of perspective becomes even more glaringly obvious than before. The pictures clearly show that cropping doesn't change perspective but the text falsely states it did change.

 

The section headlined "How does the 75 mm fit in to it all?" then repeats and engrosses the misconception, just as it did before the update.

 

Surprisingly, at the end of the article (sections "Lenses for portraits" and "Which lenses to have"), there a a few correct statements about perspective which are in contradiction to the rest of the article. I guess a beginner photographer looking for advice and insight will be pretty confused after having read this article.

 

I appreciate your input and your knowledge. When I do the promised article on perspective and depth of field, I will seek your advice for fact checking.

 

When I read through the article yesterday to see what you meant with the points, I see clearly that I use the word perspective in a completely wrong way.

 

However, I also noticed that the article contains a lot of other things that is the actual value of the article.

 

If we agree that you are the wikipedia and I am the poet, I think we will agree a lot

 

My reason for writing is not to tell people what they have, but to inspire people to dream about what they could make.

[jto555]

 

His comments have nothing to do with OCD, which as a provider of health care, is an offense reference (but, I do understand that you ignorantly are trying to make a joke of it).

 

I also disagree that everyone understands what Thorsten is try to say, semantics aside. I understand that english isn't Thorsten's first language and I applaud him for doing something that is beyond my ability (mastering a second language). But, I don't think that Thorsten has a complete understanding of perspective and Olaf is just trying to clarify this. Forgive him for being direct.

 

Both, Olaf and Thorsten are strong contributors here in their own unique way, and neither one should be criticized with language like slither, in my opinion.

 

Nor should someone be criticised with language like ignorantly, in my opinion.

[thighslapper]

 

My reason for writing is not to tell people what they have, but to inspire people to dream about what they could make.

 

.... and that is exactly how I read the article ....... and I note that you do practical workshops to help photographers take better photographs ...... not a lecture course on 'photography'.

 

I am a little dismayed at the the tone and pernickety nature of the criticisms levelled at you ....... which I think are on the brink of insulting rather than constructive.

 

Keep up the good work. If others don't like your style writing and 'lack' of technical precision they shouldn't bother to read it .....

[MarkP]

The use of 'Ignorantly' may have been somewhat awkward in that sentence, but the word is listed as a derivative adverb of ignorant in both the Oxford and Webster Dictionaries .

[jto555]

The use of 'Ignorantly' may have been somewhat awkward in that sentence, but the word is listed as a derivative adverb of ignorant in both the Oxford and Webster Dictionaries .

 

p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 120%; } I totally agree with you. An unfortunate word to use while admonishing a fellow member for an unfortunate acronym use.

 

All this is taking us away from the main trust of this thread which is an article on how good the 75mm Summilux is. I don't have one myself, I went for the Summicron for size, weight and a shorter focus throw.

 

 

 

However, I have to say that I gor caught on a shoot recently where I was at 6400iso @ F2 and and 15sec trying to photograph a moving face in a crowd at a function. Boy, could I have used the extra stop!

 

 

The Summilux is a wonderful lens and I have to agree with Olaf where he expects (hopes) that Leica is working on a new 75mm Summilux APO! If that happens, I have a new kidney for sale - only one owner, very little use... : )

[01af]

When I do the promised article on perspective and depth of field, I will seek your advice for fact checking.

I'd be glad to help.

 

 

When I read through the article yesterday to see what you meant with the points, I see clearly that I use the word perspective in a completely wrong way.

Indeed. Perspective is not just another word for 'field-of-view' or 'image content.' Perspective won't change with focal length or angle-of-view. It won't even change when you turn around 180° and look at another direction. It will change if and only if you move and change your point of view.

 

 

However, I also noticed that the article contains a lot of other things that is the actual value of the article.

Yes, indeed. While criticising some factual errors I totally failed to mention that there are many other points in that article that I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

 

My reason for writing is not to tell people what they have, but to inspire people to dream about what they could make.

That's a damn good reason, and I feel that you are mostly doing very well. Your articles—and the photographs therein—always are enjoyable and inspiring ... and that's why I think it's a pity when factual errors mark down their value.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

All this is taking us away from the main trust of this thread which is an article on how good the 75mm Summilux is. I don't have one myself, I went for the Summicron.

The Summilux is a wonderful lens and I have to agree with Olaf where he

expects (hopes) that Leica is working on a new 75mm Summilux APO! If that happens, I have a new kidney for sale - only one owner, very little use... : )

 

I have both, originally having bought the APO- Summicron but I just couldn't come at selling it after getting the Summilux. They are different lenses in that the Summicron is my standard 75 and the Summilux my 'art' lens, a bit like me the 1.0 Noctilux compared with the 50 Summilux ASPH.

 

Funny you mention kidneys as I'm a kidney physician (nephrologist)!