Summicron 75mm versus CV 75mm-Sean Reid's new review

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Sean,

 

Thank you for saving me US$1500+

 

You were right the CV75 is just an amazing lens for this price. I am not sure the price difference with the Cron75 could be justified.

 

I made many shots yesterday and I am very impressed.

 

Thanks again for your review,

 

Eric

 

Hi Eric,

 

I'm glad to hear it, thanks for the post.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

Martin,

 

Is it not best to have one mount per lens and just leave the LTM to LM adapter permanently on the lens, maybe even with a tiny dot of Loctite? You would then mount as per any other M fit bayonet lens. This is what I do for M42 lenses, leaving the adapters mounted all the time. Of course, this has the expense downside of have to have as may adapters as you have LTM or M42 lenses.

 

Wilson

 

Each of my LTM lenses has its own adapter. With practice, one can find the notch on the adapter with a quick sweep of the thumb nail. Still, it is true that it's faster to mount and dismount the Leica lenses. Maybe we could find some green dots to glue onto the LTM lenses at the correct location. I'm used to LTM lenses, though, so mounting the adapters doesn't bother me.

 

I'm working on two new articles right now, one is about shift lenses for EOS but the other is the review of 35 mm lenses for the M8.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Joe Mondello]

Thanks Sean and Guy for the comparison shots. I find these particularly helpful. Guess I'm just a *visual* guy! LOL

 

As for the Reid vs Puts debate, I read both of them and then subscribed to Reid Reviews, so my vote is in. I find Puts to be something of a Leica apologist, which I think is unnecessary. And while I appreciate the technical expertise, a few of Sean's comparison photos tell me more than any graph or MTF chart.

 

For me, the way a given lens "draws" (for lack of a better term) is a matter of artistic taste and inherently UN-quantifiable. While I would find the geometry of a Picasso painting interesting in its own right, I'd FAR rather see an image of it than a table of numerical relationships.

 

BTW I'd love to see Erwin's take on the new Wide Angle Tri-Elmar entitled (wait for it . . . )

 

"PUTS ON WATE"

 

hehe

[sean_reid]

T

 

"PUTS ON WATE"

 

hehe

 

Hi Joe,

 

You've been just waiting for a chance to slip that one in, haven't you? <G>

 

The litmus test of my lens reviews is essentially this: Do photographers who read the reviews and then purchase, rent or use the lenses in question find those lenses to be as I described them? The feedback I'm seeing on forums, in e-mails, in person, etc. seems to say "yes". Granted, there can be sample variations among different examples of a given lens, people have different tastes and priorities, etc. But what I note in looking over responses to this thread, for example, is that in actual use people are finding the reviews to have painted a fairly accurate picture of the lenses in question.

 

So, though Puts suggests that reviews like mine are of "limited value", practicing photographers may find that not to be the case at all. My reviews are written for serious photographers who care more about pictures than about equipment, per se. I'm not so interested in the value or virtues of any lens in the abstract. Rather I care most about how well a given lens might work for creating actual pictures. Perhaps this is a consequence of being a photographer and not an equipment hobbyist. My testing is largely pragmatic and based on the kinds of differences among lenses that might impact "real world" photography. Some won't like that approach and, luckily, one can choose to ignore it if he or she chooses. I'm not writing for collectors, per se, or for people who like the assurance of knowing that they own "the best of the best", I'm writing for photographers who have work to make. That's why I don't care what makers' name is on a lens or camera, I only care about what the thing is and does.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rvaubel]

Each of my LTM lenses has its own adapter. With practice, one can find the notch on the adapter with a quick sweep of the thumb nail. Still, it is true that it's faster to mount and dismount the Leica lenses. Maybe we could find some green dots to glue onto the LTM lenses at the correct location.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Sean,

 

Even though I have a seperate adapter for each lens, I am still always fumbling trying to get screw mounts to line up. Plus, I unscrew them by accident half the time. However,this thread has solved my problem.

 

* I will green loctice the adapter to the lens. I emphasis "green". This is the removable stuff used to keep screws from turning as a better replacement for nail polish. Just a dab will do ya!

 

* I need a supply of half red dots to glue to my lenses. I think I saw a source for these once but I can't remember. Anyone???

 

Rex

[waterlenz]

Since I'm prepping these right now anyway, I thought this might be of interest.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

A from the side shot like this is more useful than an oblique angle for comparing size. I would add that pix really slow down the uploading of your reviews for those with more modest internet connections such as via satellite (e.g. bush Alaska) so be very judicial in pix selections (e.g., no need to re-supply what is already on the Leica homepage) or break down reviews into separate sections - the 75 review loaded much, much faster.

Tom

[waterlenz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Right, of course not, and if you reread my discussions on this topic you'll see that I'm talking about something slightly different. What lower contrast lenses do (relative to higher contrast lenses) is to reduce the dynamic range, within the subject, so the sensor is, in fact, recording a scene with a slightly lower contrast ratio. Again, take a look at the 28 mm lens review to see concrete examples of how this plays out. My initial argument was put forward in the review I did of fast lenses for the Epson R-D1 and it can be found on Luminous Landscape.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

This reminds me of an old trick I learned in my youth in the days of film. Folks would use older uncoated lenses on their view cameras to improve shadow detail with their b&w shots. An additional analogous today approach might be to back step to single coated lenses. Lots of choices are available to the M8 shooter, depending on what you want to do with your pix.

Tom

[sean_reid]

A from the side shot like this is more useful than an oblique angle for comparing size. I would add that pix really slow down the uploading of your reviews for those with more modest internet connections such as via satellite (e.g. bush Alaska) so be very judicial in pix selections (e.g., no need to re-supply what is already on the Leica homepage) or break down reviews into separate sections - the 75 review loaded much, much faster.

Tom

 

Hi Tom,

 

Actually, I'm on satellite too because its the only the high-speed option I have here right now. It's a high-bandwidth site, for sure but I made a conscious choice to forego speed in favor of quality. BTW, if you're on Starband, I switched from that and am seeing much better performance with Hughesnet, close to a gig down sometimes which is good for this type of connection.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[sean_reid]

This reminds me of an old trick I learned in my youth in the days of film. Folks would use older uncoated lenses on their view cameras to improve shadow detail with their b&w shots. An additional analogous today approach might be to back step to single coated lenses. Lots of choices are available to the M8 shooter, depending on what you want to do with your pix.

Tom

 

Photographers who are experienced silver prints probably have a much easier time understanding why high lens contrast is not always what one might want. There are many multi-coated lenses (such as the Leica 21/2.8 Asph) that show a moderate contrast which I find works quite well with the M8.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[waterlenz]

Hi Tom,

 

Actually, I'm on satellite too because its the only the high-speed option I have here right now. It's a high-bandwidth site, for sure but I made a conscious choice to forego speed in favor of quality. BTW, if you're on Starband, I switched from that and am seeing much better performance with Hughesnet, close to a gig down sometimes which is good for this type of connection.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Hi Sean

The only two service providers here are the local phone company who recently switched from dial-up (!) to I do not know what, and the cable TV, which is what I use. Our cable and phone service drops out on a regular basis. The cable company calls them sun outages. I gather it is because the line of the sight to the satellite is the same as the sun, often low on the horizon. There is a relay station on a mountain top in the loop too.

Cheers!

Tom

[Joe Mondello]

"PUTS ON WATE"

 

hehe

 

Hi Joe,

 

You've been just waiting for a chance to slip that one in, haven't you? <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

 

Yup, about 3 weeks.

[thrid]

You are not extending the dynamic range of the hardware, you are reducing the contrast of the scene so it will fit into the sensors limited range. Studio photographers who use slide film which has a very limited dynamic range do this by controlling lighting ratios. For me the Zeiss lenses would be the ideal lenses if they were'nt so damn contrasty. They are delivering to the sensor a scene that is beyond its recording capabilities and once you loose data in the highlight or shadow you are not going to get it back. etc

 

I see where you are going with this and I also suspect that this is what is happening. A lower contrast lens is essentially changing the contrast ratio of the scene, as seen by the sensor. In some ways it's as if you took a 64 step ramp from black to white and slightly blurred it. It would give the appearance of a smoother ramp.

 

The problem is lack of color resolution, not dynamic range from black to white. Most current DSLR have a fairly large DR if you run them through testing gear, but they lack color resolution to describe what they are seeing. A 12-bit A/D is only seeing 4096 shades of every color. Sounds like a lot, but in the real world it isn't. Any one remember the comparison shots between the DMR and Canon cameras that were on the net last year? The DMR with it's 16-bit files was superior in that respect. Canon has moved to a 14-bit A/D with the new 1D mkIII.

 

Personally I think we are going to have to go as high as 24 or 36bit to get where we want to be, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that to happen. People will scream bloody murder when they see the files sizes.

 

It would be interesting to hear an explanation of this phenomena from someone in the know.

[thrid]

This reminds me of an old trick I learned in my youth in the days of film. Folks would use older uncoated lenses on their view cameras to improve shadow detail with their b&w shots. An additional analogous today approach might be to back step to single coated lenses. Lots of choices are available to the M8 shooter, depending on what you want to do with your pix.

Tom

 

Actually an uncoated lens is not increasing shadow detail. You are merely seeing scatter flashing the blacks and the transitions between subtle gradations blended.

 

One reason why the Noctilux is the low light lens par excellence is because there is next to zero scatter/flare has the light travels through the lens. It preserves the most subtle and delicate transitions of light in the scene. A flare prone lens simply makes mush of them.

 

I shot with a Noctilux for a few years and found this to be true. The amount of subtle tonal information that this lens captures in the dark is truly unique. Noctilux night shots have a clarity to them that you simply don't see in images made with almost any other lens.

 

I'll let Puts give the technical explanation:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/M10-50.html

 

"An ideal lens would only transmit all the light from the subject and bring it to sharp focus in the focal plane. In real life a quantity of non-imaging forming light ( for instance reflections between surfaces of two lens-elements) will spread uniformly over the whole negative area. When we are taking pictures of a scene that has deep shadows, the light energy hitting the emulsion can be so low that no latent image will be formed. After development this negative area will be transparent. A lens with a high flare factor however will ‘illuminate’ the shadow areas and after development the negative will now have a certain density, but of course no details of the subject will be recorded. When comparing two lenses with the same nominal aperture (say f/1,4) we might think that the one that gives a slightly higher shadow density is actually a bit ‘faster’ as more light seems to be transmitted. In fact this lens may be just more flare prone and the other one could be more highly corrected for optical aberrations."

[hankg]

A photographer who can control the scene contrast by controlling the lighting ratio balancing key and fill or a photographer who shoots on an overcast day rather then in full high noon sun is doing something very different from someone flashing a print or using a lens that has veiling flare.

 

I don't know if all differences in lens macro contrast is due to some form of flare from non image forming light. I'm not an optical engineer so I don't know if a designer can choose to deliver more moderate macro contrast together with higher micro contrast and resolution.

 

During various stages in the image process we are having to compress the color and luminosity of the original scene to fit into the range of various devices - the range of a sensor or into the color space and dynamic ranges of various printing processes. A lenses quality from a photographers point of view can only be considered in combination with the sensor it must record to.

[waterlenz]

Actually an uncoated lens is not increasing shadow detail. You are merely seeing scatter flashing the blacks and the transitions between subtle gradations blended.

 

One reason why the Noctilux is the low light lens par excellence is because there is next to zero scatter/flare has the light travels through the lens. It preserves the most subtle and delicate transitions of light in the scene. A flare prone lens simply makes mush of them.

 

I shot with a Noctilux for a few years and found this to be true. The amount of subtle tonal information that this lens captures in the dark is truly unique. Noctilux night shots have a clarity to them that you simply don't see in images made with almost any other lens.

 

I'll let Puts give the technical explanation:

 

Leica Tests M: Noctilux-M 1:1.0/50mm

 

"An ideal lens would only transmit all the light from the subject and bring it to sharp focus in the focal plane. In real life a quantity of non-imaging forming light ( for instance reflections between surfaces of two lens-elements) will spread uniformly over the whole negative area. When we are taking pictures of a scene that has deep shadows, the light energy hitting the emulsion can be so low that no latent image will be formed. After development this negative area will be transparent. A lens with a high flare factor however will ‘illuminate’ the shadow areas and after development the negative will now have a certain density, but of course no details of the subject will be recorded. When comparing two lenses with the same nominal aperture (say f/1,4) we might think that the one that gives a slightly higher shadow density is actually a bit ‘faster’ as more light seems to be transmitted. In fact this lens may be just more flare prone and the other one could be more highly corrected for optical aberrations."

 

 

There is more to this than scattered light per se. In the shadows we are in the toe portion in a film's response to light curve, so one effect is to shift the response to where slope steeper by adding light. Another aspect is increasing low light sensitivity of film, e.g., recall flashing whole sheets of film to increase sensitivity. Digital sensors have different response functions than film so much of this may not apply.

Tom

[lars_bergquist]

This thread is beginning to look like the game of Chinese Whispers. I think American kids call it 'Telephone'. What it is about now has nothing to do with what it was about in the beginning. I propose that we call a halt. If by any chance anybody is interested in discussing the original topic, it is always possible to start a new thread. You might name it 'Summicron 75mm versus CV 75mm' ...

 

The old man from the Age of the 75 mm

[wparsonsgisnet]

... What lower contrast lenses do (relative to higher contrast lenses) is to reduce the dynamic range, within the subject, so the sensor is, in fact, recording a scene with a slightly lower contrast ratio...

 

This is analogous to Ansel Adams' N-1 to N-3 development technique. I struggled with his books (read them many times, now) not realizing how much he and other photographers who were being held up to me as purists were actually manipulating their pix.

 

I agree that lower contrast lenses do reduce the dynamic range of the captured image. I just prefer the precision of the sharper lens. Therefore, I am trying to learn to take the double exposure that digital capture allows me to blend.

 

This allows us to alter the dynamic range, irrespective of the lens. It has a lot of attraction for me compared to an 8x10 camera and enlarger, several-pound lenses, hauling around a spotmeter that requires logarithmic manipulation to use, a giant negative that has been developed in a time-consuming way, and a laundry list of dodging and burning-in to get to the "correct" version of the image.

 

I'm going to learn to take a highlight and a lowlight version of a (still) scene and blend them in PS.With all the time I've saved, I'm going to take another picture.

 

For the record, I struggle with Puts' prose, as well. His writing does NOT resemble that of Minor White, however. Two points for that, but he's no fun.

[sean_reid]

Funny you should mention Ansel Adams. I was writing about his book "The Negative". For those who may not know them, the three-book series Adams did on technique in photography remains, in my mind, some of the best writing on technical matters I've ever read. They are called "The Camera", "The Negative" and "The Print". The underlying concepts are valuable for digital photographers as well as film photographers.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[sean_reid]

This thread is beginning to look like the game of Chinese Whispers. I think American kids call it 'Telephone'. What it is about now has nothing to do with what it was about in the beginning. I propose that we call a halt. If by any chance anybody is interested in discussing the original topic, it is always possible to start a new thread. You might name it 'Summicron 75mm versus CV 75mm' ...

 

The old man from the Age of the 75 mm

 

That's the way things go sometimes Lars. Hank brought up the Puts comments and the thread shifted directions. We can't unring the bell but if you have some comments on the 75s, I'd be glad to hear them.

 

Cheers,

[wparsonsgisnet]

... the three-book series Adams did on technique in photography remains, in my mind, some of the best writing on technical matters I've ever read.,,

 

Adams books spoiled me for just about any others'. Fred Picker has a great book that explains the zone system in a very simple, cookbook way -- and contains one of the best light meter explanations that I've ever seen.

 

Adams is my hero. When I was first married, the Ipkin gallery in NY carried lots of his prints, at $300, including Moonlight over Hernandez New Mexico, my favorite. I saw them and figured I could always buy a $300 print. Where's that damn time machine?

 

Sean, I agree with your statement, and find that I can apply the zone system a lot better in digital than I could with film, despite carrying 2 bodies.

 

What's better than changing iso on the fly?

 

Getting back on track -- it's a brilliant review. Those who read your stuff can do very well acquiring Cv lenses during the Leica lens drought in which we find ourselves.