Adam Posted January 15, 2016 Share #21 Â Posted January 15, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Science is not magical. Progress is not always better. Leica lenses have become larger. Regardless, enjoy the fantasy. Â Engineering might not be magical, but doing science is. Trust me. Â Progress is not always worse. Leica lens relative to others are still small. No fantasy here. The right perspective is important here... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Hi Adam, Take a look here Signature Look / Leica Look. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted January 15, 2016 Share #22  Posted January 15, 2016 Engineering might not be magical, but doing science is. Trust me.  Progress is not always worse. Leica lens relative to others are still small. No fantasy here. The right perspective is important here...  There might be a place where we agree that science, and in particular mathematics, rather than engineering, begins with a hunch, an idea, something platonic and with luck moves to reveal a scientific point which then can move onto being proven, or not.  But contemporary lens design as generally practiced is engineering. As I wrote, there was a day when lenses, for better or worse, were made to produce specific aesthetic results rather than better MTF outcomes, which have no correspondence to our human proclivity to the aesthetic's pleasing.  You and I can probably point to examples.  Very Best, Pico Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gberger Posted January 16, 2016 Share #23 Â Posted January 16, 2016 A couple of years ago, I put my M7 on a tripod and shot some slides, using Provia, I used my summicron 50 and 35 and my Zeiss 50 planar and 35 f.2 Biogon. A decent day and all were shot at 5.6 Â In projection, I could notice slight differences in color saturation, with the Zeiss being more saturated. However, it was very close, and I don't believe I would have picked it up on the light table unless the transparencies were side by side. Â My experience with Leica lenses since 1946 leads me to believe the "Leica Glow" has its existence due to unique photos, where light, its reflectance, intensity and color have led to the mystique. I clearly noticed the color difference in light in my transparencies shot in Florence, The Hague, Greenland, the Sonora Desert, Hawaii, Thailand, and New Zealand. IMO, any noticeable difference is in the light, and not the lens. Â I've hung up my cameras, but not my remembrances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
david strachan Posted January 16, 2016 Share #24  Posted January 16, 2016 Wasn't the "Leica Glow" just flare? I know my Summaron-Elmar  35mm f3.5, built in the early 1950's, is crazy with flare. It's alright if I use it carefully...sharp enough sure. And in certain circumstances, can be attractive, IMO.  But there are other lenses that flared like that too...from other manufacturers. With post-war coating's this type of flare has reduced hugely.  cheers Dave S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
platypus Posted January 16, 2016 Share #25 Â Posted January 16, 2016 ..........there are many others out there who buy it for the optical quality. Â Â Â Yes, that too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted January 16, 2016 Share #26 Â Posted January 16, 2016 So much venerated info & views, I suspect everybody is right in their own way.. Light, artistry, settings and other inunerable factors offering the final result.. Leica users cannot all be wrong! There is something, how you explain it or quantify I do not know.. Using my X's or M produce images that "fill the glass" - no pun intended.. The overall Leica experience is A culmination of artistry, experience and a touch of Mojo, all linked together... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted January 16, 2016 Share #27 Â Posted January 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) gberger, Sir, I am most honored you read & gave your acceptance of my views.. Take Care, L Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 16, 2016 Share #28 Â Posted January 16, 2016 I don't think there is a signature Leica look. Â But I could be wrong. Â Â If there was/is a signature Leica look, it's likely other manufacturers have studied the heck out of it and copied it. Â At the same time, it's clear that the lenses are superb and super-small. Â And because Leica is not as constrained by price considerations as some other manufacturers, the engineers start off with an advantage. Â Others make really good lenses too, but usually not as small, and likely more constrained by price considerations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted January 16, 2016 Share #29 Â Posted January 16, 2016 I don't think there is a signature Leica look. Â But I could be wrong. Â Â If there was/is a signature Leica look, it's likely other manufacturers have studied the heck out of it and copied it. Â At the same time, it's clear that the lenses are superb and super-small. Â And because Leica is not as constrained by price considerations as some other manufacturers, the engineers start off with an advantage. Â Others make really good lenses too, but usually not as small, and likely more constrained by price considerations. "A Doubter" but obviously Converted" - '()' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 16, 2016 Share #30  Posted January 16, 2016 ... even "Sony makes plastic images" ...   Any time people talk about their camera/lens as having more "soul" or being more "film-like" while disparaging another camera/lens as lacking "soul" or being too "plastic" — I feel they are engaging in a bit of fantasy talk.  There are no doubt significant and real differences between cameras and lenses, but those words in particular lack descriptive power when it comes to cameras and lenses.  I just don't know what they're saying other than "mine is good" and "the other is not as good". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted January 16, 2016 Share #31  Posted January 16, 2016 Any time people talk about their camera/lens as having more "soul" or being more "film-like" while disparaging another camera/lens as lacking "soul" or being too "plastic" — I feel they are engaging in a bit of fantasy talk.  There are no doubt significant and real differences between cameras and lenses, but those words in particular lack descriptive power when it comes to cameras and lenses.  I just don't know what they're saying other than "mine is good" and "the other is not as good". Whether it's a plastic lens and or a plastic bodied light box, what does it matter! The subject is about Leica" - no comparison.... I would never denigrate anyone's work or equipment.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 16, 2016 Share #32  Posted January 16, 2016 The Leica look comes from the handling of the camera and the type of image produced, not anything intrinsically to do with lenses. There are just too many variables in normal photography to make a particular rendition from a lens reliably identifiable, and to imagine you are getting something unique just by using a Leica lens is deluded. In modern photography just about the only identifiable 'look' is from using a plastic lens Holga, the lens characteristics need to be that extreme to identify a look, and to be honest you see more inspired images made with a Holga than the supposed perfection often seen from a Leica lens. This is not an insult to Leica photographers, but a Holga user is forced to use the the camera they way it is supposed to be used, it is too crude to do otherwise. But the many variables offered by a more sophisticated Leica camera also allow the indulgence in over intellectualisation of the equipment, so if you want to see a typical Leica look, look at the work of Elliott Erwitt etc., they just enjoy the camera and the way it handles.   Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted January 16, 2016 Share #33 Â Posted January 16, 2016 xyz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manoleica Posted January 16, 2016 Share #34 Â Posted January 16, 2016 Leica look is the same myth as tooth ferries at the bottom of the garden IMHO[/size] Dear Dream Killer, after paying $12,000,00 for a box and a tube with glass inside, I need to believe.. ps - spell check Your version of Fairies"" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladik Posted January 16, 2016 Share #35 Â Posted January 16, 2016 Dear Dream Killer, after paying $12,000,00 for a box and a tube with glass inside, I need to believe.. ps - spell check Your version of Fairies"" Â Over the time I have spend more than 12 k on Leica gear, sorry about my spelling I am a foreign national. 12k is a good start, do not stop here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted January 16, 2016 Share #36  Posted January 16, 2016 "A" signature Leica look? As in one and only? No such thing.  Leitz/Leica have been producing 35mm photo lenses for over 90 years. There is no single "look" that ties together a 1925 Anastigmat with a 2016 Summarit-M. Too many changes in available glass, coatings, and general advances in "bending light" over such a long time.  There are certain families of Leitz/Leica lenses, from specific eras and designers, that share a "look" in some ways - e.g. Mandler's c.1980 lenses, or the early Solms redesigns - but they are different from those that came before or after.  There is the apocryphal "Leica Glow" - which I have never really figured out. The c.1960 35 f/1.4 has one kind of glow (uncorrected aberrations at f/1.4 that act like a soft-focus filter) while the 35 Summicron v.4 and 50 Summilux pre-ASPHs sometimes have a different kind of glow (overcorrected spherical aberrations, which give a nervous vibrance to the OOF areas at large apertures).  For about 25 years 1960-1985, SLRs had a lot more mirror shake (spring-loaded rather than motor-powered mirrors) and Leica RF images in the range 1/30-1/125 were perhaps somewhat reliably sharper. But that was the mechanics behind the lenses, rather than the lenses themselves.  Leica RF wide-angles "of a certain age" were better- (or perhaps I should say, differently-) corrected than their SLR counterparts, when "retrofocus" was still being figured out, and Leica's simpler, smaller 21/28/35 designs produced more contrast and better corner resolution.  Similarly, the limitations on the RF system - little close-focus ability, nothing longer than 135 (and troublesome focusing beyond 50mm, depending on one's own limits) means there is a certain "rangefinder look" (wide-to-normal, intimate-but-not-too-intimate) common to anyone using Leica M cameras (or other RFs, but Leica has been exclusive in that market for quite a while). They all learn to "see" within those limitations. Salgado "looks" a bit like Koudelka, because they work with similar lens palettes.  Attached: 35mm Summicron v.4 @ f/2 - "Leica Glow" type 2; "a nervous vibrance to the OOF areas". Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/255633-signature-look-leica-look/?do=findComment&comment=2969722'>More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted January 16, 2016 Share #37  Posted January 16, 2016 The argument about Leica lenses has been going on for decades. In the late 1960s the local small town Leica / Leitz dealer set up an exhibit  of Leitz equipment including slide projectors at the college, with the help of the Leitz rep. A group of us had a photo field trip to generate slides for the projector display, and not believing the "Leics look" myth we used various cameras, and just selected the best slides. When the Leica rep did the projector setup with a 12 ft. screen, he went through the set of slides, and (although sometimes backing up to a previous slide) would comment "That's not a Leica lens." He was always right. The ones he rejected looked great, but his eyes were trained to notice the characteristics that Leica optimized. I thought some of the "rejects" we're sharper than the keepers, but sharpness is not the only characteristic that matters, and even sharpness has many components that we interpret as being sharp. Anyway, that nudged me in the "believer" direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMJ Posted January 16, 2016 Share #38 Â Posted January 16, 2016 Which engine? Â Â 1.8L 1zz normally aspirated. Â 2009 model. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 16, 2016 Share #39  Posted January 16, 2016 There might be a place where we agree that science, and in particular mathematics, rather than engineering, begins with a hunch, an idea, something platonic and with luck moves to reveal a scientific point which then can move onto being proven, or not.  But contemporary lens design as generally practiced is engineering. As I wrote, there was a day when lenses, for better or worse, were made to produce specific aesthetic results rather than better MTF outcomes, which have no correspondence to our human proclivity to the aesthetic's pleasing.  You and I can probably point to examples.  Very Best, Pico   One of your best.  I enjoy the way you use the variation of the word plutonic.   Rick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted January 16, 2016 Share #40 Â Posted January 16, 2016 Does your point rely on Pluto being a planet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.