Antonio Russell Posted January 17, 2015 Share #21 Posted January 17, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Like I explained, if I want 'bokeh' use the 50 lux ASPH. If I want the environment I use the 35 cron ASPH. Exactly. :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 17, 2015 Posted January 17, 2015 Hi Antonio Russell, Take a look here Review: Leica Summicron-M 1:2/35mm ASPH.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
TRIago Posted January 18, 2015 Share #22 Posted January 18, 2015 I love 50's. But when I'm heading out and need to grab one lens only, this is it. It doesn't get any better than 35 Summicron Asph. Built like a thank, small and image quality is just as good as it gets. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 18, 2015 Share #23 Posted January 18, 2015 ... why does one need f/1.4 or f/0.95 except for DOF effects? And wouldn't that be easier to accomplish (and reverse) with a software solution in post? ...a I've never seen a post-processing rendition of Bokeh that impressed me or looked genuine. Most commonly they look to me simply like Gaussian blur in greater or lesser strength and are unable to replicate the gradual and continual blending from sharpness to smoothness. YMMV. Pete. True. Click on the images in this review and see how unnatural it looks. The problem is mainly that the software can only create a sharp subject and never a sharp plane of focus. See the lady cooking. she is sharp, but the part of the kitchen that should be as well is blurred. And Gaussian blur is nothing like the blur induced by the aperture. Ron Martinsen's Photography Blog: REVIEW: onOne Focal Point 1.02 -vs- Alien Skin Bokeh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 18, 2015 Share #24 Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, and it's a constant blur where it's not sharp whereas lens blur tends to vary in character with depth in my experience. There's also no gentle transition from sharp to unsharp so, in the Alien Skin example, below her arm is sharp but above her arm is fully blurred, which just doesn't look to me as a lens would render it. In the onOne example the cupboard door behind her suddenly changes from sharp to blurred halfway up. The sample picture contains no spectral highlights so it would have been interesting to see how the software handled spectral discs and their change in shape across the frame. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Russell Posted January 18, 2015 Share #25 Posted January 18, 2015 For me the attraction of Leica rangefinders is the ability to shoot quickly and zone focus, therefore I am typically shooting between f5.6-f8, I want maximum DOF to cover the action quickly and comprehensively. And I want a small light camera/lens. Cartier-Bresson famously once said that “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”, and I read a lot of obsessing on internet fora over lens technical characteristics, MTF charts, minor differences in bokeh, etc., etc. but when I actually look at the work of photographers who inspire me such as Trent Parke, Robert Frank, Koudelka, and others I can't help but agree with him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 18, 2015 Share #26 Posted January 18, 2015 Cartier-Bresson famously once said that “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept”, It's funny how these things change with time and then some how falsely shape the future. Sharpness is not bourgeois. That was a cheeky and clever joke by HCB when Helmut Newton shot a portrait of him for Vanity Fair Magazine, since Helmut's content and style is very bourgeois. The joke was relating to HCB's old shaky hand while taking pictures. To quote Newsweek Magazine It was Newsweek’s radical idea to have Helmut Newton, known for his erotic and extremely composed photographs, shoot a portrait of Cartier-Bresson, master of the wholly natural Decisive Moment. Cartier-Bresson loathes having his picture taken, and when he must, he insists the photographer be a member of Magnum, the cooperative he co-founded half a century ago. Newton is not a member. Yet they met up in Paris last week for the shoot. “He looked good, very good, says Newton, 83. “He did everything I wanted, and was so sweet. I shot two rolls in color because he has very beautiful blue eyes, and four of black-and-white, because, being Cartier-Bresson, it has to be black-and-white.” Newton finally saw Cartier-Bresson again last year, when Vanity Fair asked Cartier-Bresson to shoot a portrait of Newton for a portfolio by photographers older than 80. Cartier-Bresson invited Newton and his wife, June for lunch at his flat in the rue de Rivoli. Then they walked to a nearby park to take the picture. Newton remembers: ” He had his little Leica. and he simply would point and shoot. Since Cartier-Bresson’s hand isn’t as steady as it used to be, some of the pictures were a bit fuzzy.” Laughing, Cartier – Bresson said “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” Newton recalls. Newton sits back and laughs: “I thought that was just divine.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Russell Posted January 18, 2015 Share #27 Posted January 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) It's funny how these things change with time and then some how falsely shape the future. Sharpness is not bourgeois. That was a cheeky and clever joke by HCB when Helmut Newton shot a portrait of him for Vanity Fair Magazine, since Helmut's content and style is very bourgeois. The joke was relating to HCB's old shaky hand while taking pictures. To quote Newsweek Magazine Indeed but (pedantry aside) the actual point I was making still stands. CB himself chose to shoot the same old 50mm collapsible Summicron for most of his career putting form first before anything else, even before the light or "perfume" as he liked to call it. For all the discussion of lens characteristics they are ultimately irrelevant to taking good photos. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 18, 2015 Share #28 Posted January 18, 2015 Indeed but (pedantry aside) the actual point I was making still stands. CB himself chose to shoot the same old 50mm collapsible Summicron for most of his career putting form first before anything else, even before the light or "perfume" as he liked to call it. For all the discussion of lens characteristics they are ultimately irrelevant to taking good photos. A good photo on a better lens is even better .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Russell Posted January 18, 2015 Share #29 Posted January 18, 2015 A good photo on a better lens is even better .... Not at all! A good photo is still a good photo, it is not improved by resolution and all that other stuff. A painting is not better because it is bigger and contains more colours. A photo taken with a 1.4 lens is not necessarily better than one taken with an f2 lens. At least for me anyway. Any more than its better to get a large coke over a normal coke at McDonalds. I realise I will probably be ostracised saying this but Size, quantity, price, etc. etc.are all the classic marketing traps. The Leica ethos always used to be that small can be beautiful too.... no need for that large format camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted January 18, 2015 Share #30 Posted January 18, 2015 Indeed but (pedantry aside) the actual point I was making still stands. CB himself chose to shoot the same old 50mm collapsible Summicron for most of his career putting form first before anything else, even before the light or "perfume" as he liked to call it. For all the discussion of lens characteristics they are ultimately irrelevant to taking good photos. It's not pedantic at all. What he joked about has been grossly taken out of context. Of corse, the photo can be more important than the light, that is not what I'm saying. Ultimately, I agree with you and live by that, hence my signature here for several years: 'Perception. Not Perfection'. The camera is both important and not important. I will always look at the content before the aesthetic but when all things are combined, then it really becomes quite magical. Like it or not, IQ is a vocabulary that can truly heighten or diminsh the experience and message, but rarely create or take away. It's like a truly great musician choosing a Steinway or a Stradivarius to play a truly brilliant piece of music. Of course they don't need it, but it does sound better. Technologically we have far more on offer today than HCB had. He chose his tool for his needs but if he could have had medium format and pushing 5x4 clarity in 35mm camera form I'm sure he wouldn't have scoffed at it. If he didn't care about his camera, he quite possibly wouldn't have had a Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
semi-ambivalent Posted January 18, 2015 Share #31 Posted January 18, 2015 ...are all the classic marketing traps. Agree completely, but remember too that The Customer is often a party to his own convincing. That said, buy what you want and move on; there's daylight going to waste. I can get you in this lovely Summilux coupé today!, s-a Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted January 18, 2015 Share #32 Posted January 18, 2015 Cartier-Bresson famously once said that “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” HCB said a lot of silly things. So did Brassaï. They were phenomenal photographers but not everything they ever said is law. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share #33 Posted January 18, 2015 I say a lot of silly things too, they are just people and humans you know Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonio Russell Posted January 18, 2015 Share #34 Posted January 18, 2015 HCB said a lot of silly things. So did Brassaï. They were phenomenal photographers but not everything they ever said is law. Indeed. All I said was that I agreed with him :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 18, 2015 Share #35 Posted January 18, 2015 Not at all! A good photo is still a good photo, it is not improved by resolution and all that other stuff. A painting is not better because it is bigger and contains more colours. A photo taken with a 1.4 lens is not necessarily better than one taken with an f2 lens. At least for me anyway. Any more than its better to get a large coke over a normal coke at McDonalds. I realise I will probably be ostracised saying this but Size, quantity, price, etc. etc.are all the classic marketing traps. The Leica ethos always used to be that small can be beautiful too.... no need for that large format camera. Completely disagree That is an argument for everyone using a smart phone, lomography or one use cheapie camera Sure you could do a good landscape photo with a smart phone but if you had a high resolution quality camera and the photograph was technically done correctly it would be a much better photograph probably colours, resolution, dynamic range, etc, The reason I take my camera everywhere is to avoid being caught with a great photo idea and then realising all I have is a smart phone and I'll not be able to realise the potential of the composition There is a reason people buy good equipment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share #36 Posted January 18, 2015 Yes otherwise I would have kept my Olympus trip and never looked further Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 18, 2015 Share #37 Posted January 18, 2015 Completely disagree That is an argument for everyone using a smart phone, lomography or one use cheapie camera .... There is a reason people buy good equipment Yes, but you are falling into the trap of comparing equipment that is widely different in capability. Once you get to a certain level of quality – e.g. any Leica M lens – the differences in sharpness and "rendering" will not make a meaningful difference to a fine photograph. Would Koudelka's masterly photographs be better if he'd used modern APO and ASPH lenses? Would Don McCullin's war photos be improved if he'd been able to use the latest Nikon lenses with ED glass and Nano coatings rather than his "old" pre-Ai lenses? Is James Nachtwey's body of work inferior because he used "crappy" Canon lenses rather than a Zeiss Otus?, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 18, 2015 Share #38 Posted January 18, 2015 It's funny how these things change with time and then some how falsely shape the future. Sharpness is not bourgeois. That was a cheeky and clever joke by HCB when Helmut Newton shot a portrait of him for Vanity Fair Magazine, since Helmut's content and style is very bourgeois. The joke was relating to HCB's old shaky hand while taking pictures. To quote Newsweek Magazine Thanks for the quote from Newsweek. It's great to learn the context of that famous HCB quote. Related to that, here is one of the portraits of Newton by HCB: https://www.magnumphotos.com/image/PAR188273.html For some reason, the Magnum web site makes all of HCB's photos look a bit fuzzy on my computer screen, but I don't believe they are actually that fuzzy as I have seen sharper versions of many of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnfell Posted January 18, 2015 Share #39 Posted January 18, 2015 Nice write-up. I agree with most of your findings. I spent the most part of 2014 with only this lens mounted to my Monochrom, and rarely did I find that i missed out on anything. ( I guess this is what you call versatile. ) The 35 is to me the narrowest lens that affords usable hyperfocal focusing, which is one of the really big treats to rangefinder photographers One more thing- for some reason I find that it´s also my only lens that affords usable one-handed photography with the leica - because of the small size and relatively large focus knob. (For the record I have six leica lenses, and bar one they all have tabs.) PS: great photography. Carry on! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted January 18, 2015 Share #40 Posted January 18, 2015 Yes, but you are falling into the trap of comparing equipment that is widely different in capability. Once you get to a certain level of quality – e.g. any Leica M lens – the differences in sharpness and "rendering" will not make a meaningful difference to a fine photograph. Would Koudelka's masterly photographs be better if he'd used modern APO and ASPH lenses? Would Don McCullin's war photos be improved if he'd been able to use the latest Nikon lenses with ED glass and Nano coatings rather than his "old" pre-Ai lenses? Is James Nachtwey's body of work inferior because he used "crappy" Canon lenses rather than a Zeiss Otus?, etc. Now you have changed your argument and I agree Incremental changes are usually unimportant. GAS keeps much of the industry afloat but most changes have no effect. However some things could be worth having and up to the individual. If someone enjoys and appreciates the APO 50 good for them. I find that Leica M system to a certain extent an opt out of gas. If there was no sensor issue with the M9 I would probably still be using mine The M7 was pure GAS, I just liked the silver one in a shop and felt like the film pleasure for a bit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.