Please correct me if I'm wrong about 75mm APO-Summilux-M ASPH f/1.4

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Was it cooled in a nuclear base or in Mandler's desk drawer? Was it sent to be cooled on the moon?

 

Actually, the glass is cooled in Minnesota where the average temperature is colder than the moon.

[wizard]

Actually it was 10 to 12 days, and the key factor of the Noctilux glass was that it contained Zirconium Oxide, heightening the melting point to 1600 degrees, which presented problems with the containers it was melted in.

Closing the glass lab in 1989 did not halt production of the Noctilux, so it is obvious that Leica was able to obtain the glass elsewhere.

The only lens that I am aware of that was discontinued because glass was unobtainable was the MATE, as Leica was unable to get satisfactory blanks of the front element elsewhere  when Schott decided to close down that process.

 

As a MATE owner, I was and still am personally interested in that particular lens. According to my information, which I obtained from Leica directly, the original front element of the MATE came from Hoya in Japan. When Hoya stopped making this lens element, Leica tried to use a second source (which to the best of my knowledge was Kyocera), and in fact did produce a small batch of MATEs with a front element from the new supplier, but it turned out that for some reason quality was not consistent enough to ensure optical quality of the finished lens, leading to a high rejection rate. This prompted Leica to stop production of the MATE.

 

Cheers,

 

Andy

[jaapv]

Spot-on.

[Peter H]

Going back to the OP, am I alone in thinking that the photo would be improved if both eyes were in focus?

 

What's the benefit here of such shallow depth of field? I've never really liked the idea of a new 75 1.4, Mandler-style or otherwise, for fear of being inundated by even more one-eyed portraits.

[jaapv]

Peter, I think you are quite correct. Furthermore I would suggest that the subject could benefit from a slightly harsher drawing lens, to bring out the cragginess it implies.

The dreamy look of the Summilux would be more suited to softer and more romantic portraits, especially high-key IMO.

[otto.f]

The Summilux 75 was developed for film, mostly Tri-X I'd say. With this digital portrait here the difference in sharpness impression between the focused area and the unsharper area's comes out much more pronounced than with film I'd say. 

I wouldn't put my money on the bet that that would be better with a new APO Summilux 75

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Going back to the OP, am I alone in thinking that the photo would be improved if both eyes were in focus?

 

 

Yes, it does have a kind of cyclops or Patrick Moore quality about it. Which is a pity because the lighting isn't run of the mill and some thought has gone into the portrait.

[CheshireCat]

What's the benefit here of such shallow depth of field? I've never really liked the idea of a new 75 1.4, Mandler-style or otherwise, for fear of being inundated by even more one-eyed portraits.

 

It is not the tool, but the user.

You can have one-eyed portrait with a 50/5.6 if you shoot close enough.

 

There are many benefits of a shallow DoF, if properly used. First and foremost, subject separation and "3D look".

[CheshireCat]

I think I must have had a bad copy because my 75mm Summilux lens was terrible, it was rubbish wide open and only marginally better stopped down.

 

You had a bad copy, or - more likely - couldn't nail focus because of RF alignment issues.

Focus is critical with such high apertures.

[Peter H]

It is not the tool, but the user.

You can have one-eyed portrait with a 50/5.6 if you shoot close enough.

 

There are many benefits of a shallow DoF, if properly used. First and foremost, subject separation and "3D look".

 

 

I agree with your first sentence.

 

But I'm not keen on subject separation by means of shallow dof except as a genuinely last resort. It is very often used as an easy, perhaps even lazy, alternative to good composition. The same pretty much goes for the 3D look too. Good composition is so much more powerful more important than the lens in use. 

 

I don't deny the attraction of fast lenses, but they are way, way down the list of what is important in creating an interesting photograph, in my opinion.

[CheshireCat]

You’ll never get the Mandler look in a modern APO lens. Just stick with the original...

Depends.

You would be surprised at how close the latest Summicron-M 90 (non-APO) and the APO Summicron 75 are at f/2.

The Summilux 75 wide open is a different story.

[CheshireCat]

I'm not keen on subject separation by means of shallow dof except as a genuinely last resort. It is very often used as an easy, perhaps even lazy, alternative to good composition. The same pretty much goes for the 3D look too. Good composition is so much more powerful more important than the lens in use.

Agreed. But when wisely used, a photo with a 3D look is more "real" than a flat "f/8 and be there".

Shallow DoF requires more skill. It is not always required and sometimes it does not make sense, but it is nice to have the option. Just stop down when needed.

[Peter H]

Agreed. But when wisely used, a photo with a 3D look is more "real" than a flat "f/8 and be there".

Shallow DoF requires more skill. It is not always required and sometimes it does not make sense, but it is nice to have the option. Just stop down when needed.

I feel the opposite to be the case in almost every detail, leading me to believe that we have quite different tastes when it comes to the aesthetics of photography and the ideas behind it.

[CheshireCat]

I feel the opposite to be the case in almost every detail, leading me to believe that we have quite different tastes when it comes to the aesthetics of photography and the ideas behind it.

 

I beg to differ. Most "canonical f/8" photos are just unnatural infinite DoF.

For most of these, an iPhone is good enough.

[wattsy]

I beg to differ. Most "canonical f/8" photos are just unnatural infinite DoF.

For most of these, an iPhone is good enough.

 

 

Amazing really, if you believe that (and are not just trying to wind Peter up). To think how much better a master of composition like Koudelka might have been if he followed your kind of advice.

[pop]

I beg to differ. Most "canonical f/8" photos are just unnatural infinite DoF.

For most of these, an iPhone is good enough.

The human eye has a focal length of about 17mm. The diameter of the pupil at daylight is between 1.5mm and 2mm. That's between 1:8 and 1:11. Unnatural, of course.

[pgk]

I beg to differ. Most "canonical f/8" photos are just unnatural infinite DoF.

 

 

The human eye has a focal length of about 17mm. The diameter of the pupil at daylight is between 1.5mm and 2mm. That's between 1:8 and 1:11. Unnatural, of course.

 

The human eye and brain are intrinsically interlinked and do not operate in the same way as a camera in that the information that you visualise is heavily processed, and that processing is based on an awful lot of information, much of it historical. So we tend not to see things 'out of focus' unless we try hard, or the area is outside any accommodation of our eye, etc.. So our 'default' setting probably is an effectively infinite depth of field. And we assess the scene in front of us 'filling in' expected data such as colour or anticipated clarity despite the fact that it might not actually exist to us as such. Trying to compare a two dimensional photographic representation of a scene with our perception of the scene is fine at a very base level but falls apart as soon as you try to look at the comparison 'technically'. Just as a simple example, we cannot 'see' colour with our peripheral vision, but we perceive it because experience and assessment of the scene often lead us to expect it - think large expanse of blue sky - we perceive it as blue all over. As an experiment get someone to bring a colour object from just outside your vision into your view and try to figure when you can identify its colour. So any suggestion about 'natural' or 'unnatural' is fraught with difficulties.

[jto555]

Going back to the OP, am I alone in thinking that the photo would be improved if both eyes were in focus?

 

What's the benefit here of such shallow depth of field? I've never really liked the idea of a new 75 1.4, Mandler-style or otherwise, for fear of being inundated by even more one-eyed portraits.

 

I totally agree. When I first used a Canon 85mm F1.2 I shot a portrait for a client at F1.2. The client rejected the portrait because of the ‘wobbly’ eye. His words! However I do like the idea of a 75mm F1.4 for subject isolation.

[pop]

The human eye and brain are intrinsically interlinked and do not operate in the same way as a camera in that the information that you visualise is heavily processed, and that processing is based on an awful lot of information, much of it historical. So we tend not to see things 'out of focus' unless we try hard, or the area is outside any accommodation of our eye, etc.. So our 'default' setting probably is an effectively infinite depth of field. And we assess the scene in front of us 'filling in' expected data such as colour or anticipated clarity despite the fact that it might not actually exist to us as such. Trying to compare a two dimensional photographic representation of a scene with our perception of the scene is fine at a very base level but falls apart as soon as you try to look at the comparison 'technically'. Just as a simple example, we cannot 'see' colour with our peripheral vision, but we perceive it because experience and assessment of the scene often lead us to expect it - think large expanse of blue sky - we perceive it as blue all over. As an experiment get someone to bring a colour object from just outside your vision into your view and try to figure when you can identify its colour. So any suggestion about 'natural' or 'unnatural' is fraught with difficulties.

Yes, but: Just the most simple technical consideration shows that f:8 or f:11 comes quite close to the normal reception of - say - a landscape by the naked eye. You are, however, certainly right in that we do not "see" the raw image recorded by the eyes, and I'm quite thankful of that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MarkP]

I like my fast lenses, in particular the 1.4/75 Summilux.

 

No disrespect to the OP, but this is an otherwise fabulous portrait (composition & facial expression, lighting, and colour) which is unfortunately spoilt by a visually uncomfortable lack of depth of focus on the subject's face.  Do you have any photos from that session shot with a slightly smaller aperture?