Newbie Question - Classic vs modern look

[PaulJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a new owner of a M240-P and am loving the image quality and the shooting experience. I'm starting to learn about the lenses and I am coming across phrases such as 'modern look' and 'classical/vintage look'.

 

Can someone educate me with links to examples so I can see what this means.

 

When people talk about the way a lens 'draws' are they referring to bokeh, contrast, sharpness, colour shifts and /or something else?

 

Many thanks

Paul 

[earleygallery]

Welcome, 

 

The answer is all of the above, and more. 

 

There are a couple of pinned threads in this forum, the view through older glass and old lenses on the M, plenty of examples for you to look at. 

 

Contrast is a typical difference between old lenses and newer lenses/coatings, but then some newer lenses also draw like more vintage lenses. It's a case of deciding what type of 'look' you prefer and selecting a lens to achieve that look. 

 

Remember there's no 'bad' lens. 

[luigi bertolotti]

Which lens do you use with your M ? I ask because is rather probable than you can experience for few money the difference between "classic" and "modern"... (I mean, if you have a contemporary 50, Summicron Summilux or Summarit... an old Elmar comes for cheap and is never a mistake to have one... )

[MarkP]

This is one of the Forum's classic threads on the classic Mandler-era lenses...

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/45272-in-praise-of-the-mandler-lenses/

[rirakuma]

Flickr is a really good place to research. A striking comparison would be something like a 50mm summilux asph and the pre asph version.

[spydrxx]

Hi PJ. The answer is rather complex, but I boil it down in simplistic terms to "classic/vintage look" being often distinguished by somewhat lower contrast, central sharpness which decreases as one moves toward the periphery of the photograph, and sometimes a little vignetting; "modern look" being crisper with often intensely sharp edges, distinct contrast but still having depth of tones in dark areas, and virtually no vignetting. Most photographs fall somewhere between these extremes, so it becomes somewhat of a conundrum, relying more on the skill of the photographer knowing the capabilities of his gear and how to manipulate it to achieve the look he desires, than solely the choice of lens design.

[PaulJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I bought the MP I already had a Zeiss Ikon ZM with a 35mm biogon f2. I have already bought two used lenses. A 50mm summicron and a 28mm Elmarit (latest versions). I am very pleased with the results from both lenses but have not had time to become well acquainted with them.

 

I like the idea of cheaper glass that might give a special look (who doesn't?). I have also acquired an M4 and would like to get an older lens to compliment it.

 

I think I like my M4 more than my MP but they are totally different animals so not a problem. I will be selling the Zeiss Ikon but not sure about selling the biogon just yet.

 

Thanks for the links and pointers to do some research of my own.

[Peter H]

...............

I like the idea of cheaper glass that might give a special look (who doesn't?). ................

 

Hello and welcome to the forum.

 

Whilst I do like the idea of cheaper lenses, I don't like the idea of a special look, and I don't think i'm alone judging by past discussions on the subject.

 

I prefer my lenses to be as neutral, or accurate, or transparent, as possible. People sometimes call the charming aberrations and faults often visible in older lenses "character". That's fine if that is what you're after, but I want as little as possible coming between the subject I'm trying to take a photo of, and my eyes. That's why Leica's most modern lenses, despite their price, are the most appealing to me.

 

This is all a matter of personal preference though. Some call this transparency "clinical" and prefer their photos to have something of the classic look about them, which I take to mean something nostalgic, or reminiscent of great photos from the past. But I tend to think that the thing that made some of those old photos so wonderful wasn't so much the impurities of the lenses but all the other qualities that the photographer brought to the photo. A better lens would not have harmed those photos, in my opinion.

[PaulJohn]

Flickr is a really good place to research. A striking comparison would be something like a 50mm summilux asph and the pre asph version.

 

I've just done this and didnt see it at first but my observation is that the ASPH lenses have more clarity, bite, definition. I included m9 in the search to rule out sensor differences. I also found some incredible images in the process. Look at this

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carnuzo/14431644383/in/faves-100656707@N06/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carnuzo/12911865705/in/faves-100656707@N06/

 

I couldnt find anything pre-ASPH to match the punch of this photo and othes like it.

[earleygallery]

I think you need to define 'special look'.

 

One lens you could try which is bargain money for Leica, is the 9cm f4 Elmar. I think it makes a great portrait lens. Another favourite of mine is the Summar f2 (LTM mount only but fits with the right M adaptor of course). Both lenses sell for circa £100 in typical used condition.

 

Condition is key - many older lenses will have a lot of internal dust, haze and cleaning marks which can affect performance. I've often heard people refer to the Summar as a 'soft' lens because they get soft focus results from their badly marked and hazy example. As it happens the 'soft' description applies to the glass it's made with, which is easily marked from regular cleaning.

 

You could also try some of the Russian LTM lenses like the Jupiter 8. A good Jupiter 8 is a fine lens (a Zeiss copy). With any of these lenses you can buy them and try them, and sell them on for the same money, so you have nothing to lose by experimenting!

[willeica]

I second the recommendation by James for the Summar. If you can get a good one, you will get more distinctive character per euro, pound or dollar from this lens than any other made by Leica. Just a personal opinion.

 

William

[rirakuma]

I've just done this and didnt see it at first but my observation is that the ASPH lenses have more clarity, bite, definition. I included m9 in the search to rule out sensor differences. I also found some incredible images in the process. Look at this

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carnuzo/14431644383/in/faves-100656707@N06/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/carnuzo/12911865705/in/faves-100656707@N06/

 

I couldnt find anything pre-ASPH to match the punch of this photo and othes like it.

 

Well the asph is an astounding performer, it has both character and technical superiority however sometimes its also nice to have a more classic look hence why some people prefer the pre asph. I sold the 50 lux asph because I found it to be too "perfect" but there are many people who uses its technical performance to their advantage. I just prefer the compact and more neutral 50 tabicron.

[IWC Doppel]

A few things that seem to characterise the looks of modern Lieca M glass (I'll get shot for this BTW as there are many lenses that prove most if not all of these to be wrong on many occasions)

 

Better corner resolution

less vignetting

A tendancy towards pink not yellow with the colourings (compare the 35 Summicron ASPH to MkIV for a good example)

More contrast

A quicker transition from in focus to out of focus (less aesthetically pleasing ?)

Usually less soft Bokeh's

A more 'even' hand (better design compromise ?)

[asiafish]

When I bought the MP I already had a Zeiss Ikon ZM with a 35mm biogon f2. I have already bought two used lenses. A 50mm summicron and a 28mm Elmarit (latest versions). I am very pleased with the results from both lenses but have not had time to become well acquainted with them.

 

I like the idea of cheaper glass that might give a special look (who doesn't?). I have also acquired an M4 and would like to get an older lens to compliment it.

 

I think I like my M4 more than my MP but they are totally different animals so not a problem. I will be selling the Zeiss Ikon but not sure about selling the biogon just yet.

 

Thanks for the links and pointers to do some research of my own.

Your 28 Elmarit and 50 Summicron are the perfect pair to show classic and modern (I own the same two lenses.  

 

The 28 Elmarit is a modern lens, with aspherical elements and high contrast and sharpness from corner to corner.  It has almost no distortion and is, in all respects, a great example of a lens with modern rendering.

 

The 50 Summicron (version 5, not APO) is an all spherical lens originally designed in 1979 by the late Walter Mandler.  This is perhaps among the most modern (the 50 Summarit is even more so) of the classical lenses, but it definitely renders in a classical way, with lower contrast at wide apertures and a less clinical look.  

 

For a really classical lens look at the old 50 Elmars or the modern or ancient Zeiss Sonnars.  Field curvature, distortion, vignetting and softness in the corners, as well as aberrations that create a certain glow are very appealing in many applications, and unwanted in others.

 

My favorite classical lens in my collection is a Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar that was made in 1937 and lacks any and all lens coatings.  It is a soft, low-contrast lens wide-open, but stopped down sharpens up nicely.

 

Here are two portraits made with this lens, one on the M Monochrom and the other on the M-E.

 

L1003267.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

 

Mrs Kimura by Andrew F, on Flickr