Signature Look / Leica Look

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

I've hung up my cameras, but not my remembrances.

I think George is onto something here.  Other than his post #23 (above), I don't recall much commentary on the light being a factor - but it has to be a factor.

 

That having been said, I have to wonder - is the "Leica signature" due to the light, the lens or a combination of the two?  I would have to believe that it is a combination of the two.

 

In a studio where a very flat, generic light has been purposely created, I would guess that the "Leica signature" would be much more difficult to see than in the light of a place like Florence or the Sonora Desert.  Having never been to either, this is just a guess.

 

Another guess would be that the "Leica signature" would be difficult to detect in the blaring stage light of a stadium concert or the flat light of high noon at high altitude, such as on Mount Yale (Collegiate Peaks in the Sawatch Range of the Rocky Mountains ).

 

Thoughts?

[DezFoto]

But to say that any manufacturer's lenses have a 'signature look' is preposterous. Design parameters change (fortunately, or we'd all be stuck with old and poor designs) and consequently the 'look' of the images must change too (pre-aspheric versus aspheric designs - quite different design parameters and obviously they create different images too). So to suggest that there is a 'Leica look' is to suggest some technical magical mystique created by Leica optical engineers which has been added into their lens design mix since they started and nobody else has ever discovered it. If you seriously think that then you've probably been schooled at Hogwarts. Lens design is a technical process and Leica optical engineers are obviously very good at it - but they are not magicians.

 

So you're trying to tell me that the notion of a lens manufacturer making an effort to have all the current lenses render consistently is preposterous? That's almost a laughable statement. EVERY manufacture makes an effort to have all of their current lenses render in a consistent manner to each other. Every single one of them. Obviously that "look" changes over time, as tastes change, technology changes and different optical designers come and go, but if you were to suggest to Peter Karbe that he made no effort to have all the Leica lenses he designed render a similar look, he'd probably be extremely offended. Walter Mandler created a series of lenses that had a particular look to them, and that was the "Leica Look" for a very long time. When Peter Karbe came along, he started redesigning the lineup to have the look that he desired, so now that's the "Leica Look". 

 

I work as a photographer in the film industry, as such, I'm around lenses that cost $24K-$50k each (cine lenses) and have had lengthy discussions with DP's about lenses and looks. Panavision, Leica, Fujinon, RED, Cooke, Hawke etc. all going to extreme pains to make their lenses color balance the same, and render with the same level of contrast, quality of bokeh etc. and they all have completely different looks! It's a fact of the industry. When I spoke to the Leica representatives at NAB a couple of years ago, they explained a length how the entire point of their Cine lens lineup was to give DP's the ability to shoot moving pictures have the look of their still lenses. 

 

Just because your eye is not sensitive enough to see the difference, doesn't mean it's not there, and to suggest that it doesn't exist because you can't see it, is (to use your word) preposterous. There's people that can't see the difference between red and green, but they don't run around denying they're unique colors. 

[hepcat]

Haha you are actually modifying the order of the words I type? For real? Comic.

This is the 3rd time I write you this: you don't need anyone to demonstrate anything for you.

If you have doubts, put some cameras next to each other using the same settings, shoot them, then you pick what you like best. The end.

 

I apologize for the heavy editing...  I wanted to reply to those specific points.    And btw, I've shot with Leica since 1974... and it IS my choice of camera system because I like it the best.  But the "signature Leica look" has nothing to do with my choice...  except perhaps that I really like the consistently beautiful colors that my M9P sensor cranks out...  but that's another issue entirely.

 

And there's no doubt about the truth of your though that each camera system will look slightly different.  I had a Panasonic GX-1 that was waaaay too heavy on magenta and the files were a PP nightmare.   But the issue isn't how the Leitz/Leica glass compares to other systems... as pgk says above, it's that the claims of a "signature Leica look" would require all Leitz/Leica glass across the line, and regardless of age to have some property that causes them all to make images that have the same "look" while having at the same time a "look" that is different from the images taken with all other systems' lenses.   It would require the most recent lenses released to record light in some fashion that would make images made with it "look" identical to image properties the lenses produced for the Leica II series in the 1920s.   

 

That, to me, is a tall order that no lens line can manage, or probably should even try to do, for that matter.  

 

And with this, as far as I'm concerned this dead horse is thoroughly beaten.  If, however, someone clearly demonstrates that I'm all wet, I'll be happy to eat crow.

 

Carry on! 

[DezFoto]

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

 

The "Leica Glow" was uncorrected spherical aberrations. It's particularly noticeable when shooting at wide apertures with Leica's older lenses like the pre-ash 35mm Summilux's. Peter Karbe stomped that optical flaw out of existence with his designs. 

To compound the problem, people who truly have no idea what they're talking about (like Steve Huff), spout lyrical BS about bokeh, the "leica glow", "3d pop". Then his followers repeat it, but without truly knowing how to quantify it, because Huff doesn't know how to quantify it, but he continues to sprinkle his nonsense liberally throughout all of his articles as he presents himself as an "expert" in the field. The only thing I think he's an expert at, is writing favorable reviews and getting other people to write free (uncompensated) content for his website. 

[pgk]

So you're trying to tell me that the notion of a lens manufacturer making an effort to have all the current lenses render consistently is preposterous?

 

If you are going to post please read what I said. I did not say that all current lenses did not have similar design parameters or look, I said that not ALL Leica lenses have had the same design parameters and accordingly they do not share the same look. There is a massive difference in your statement and mine. The problem we have is that there are some who seem to see Leica lens usage as a quasi-religious experience and they constantly refer to some sort of 'magic' about Leica lenses. I am sure that you will agree that no top end lens manufacturer has any magic dust sprinkled in their lens formulas, just a great deal of technical expertise and experienced lens designers who, as you say, build consistency into their lens designs. To do so they will have a very high level of understanding of the design elements which produce the look they put into their current lens line up - and when new designs are produced they will no doubt ensure consistency throughout these too with some of the existing design parameters retained. But none will have any magic formula. 

 

FWIW if you read up on the pre-aspherical 35mm Summilux design which was and it appears probably still would be, as good as a none aspheric design of this size, aperture and focal length can be, then it will be obvious that Mandler knew what he was doing but had constraints which limited the corrections that he could apply. Compare his pre-aspheric lens with later Karbe aspheric designs, which as you say dealt with the problems which Mandler could not solve within his design parameters, and there are clear and distinct differences - there is not a great deal of consistency because the design is inherently different. Now tell me what Leica signature these two radically different designs share.

[pico]

I work as a photographer in the film industry, as such, I'm around lenses that cost $24K-$50k each (cine lenses) and have had lengthy discussions with DP's about lenses and looks. Panavision, Leica, Fujinon, RED, Cooke, Hawke etc. all going to extreme pains to make their lenses color balance the same, and render with the same level of contrast, quality of bokeh etc. [...]

 

So true. The stakes in motion picture making are super critical. Transiting from one FL to another or to a differently designed lens can be catastrophic. That said, the same across-the-board (batch) standards for rendering are not the same for Leica's still photo lenses.

 

Who said, "Motion picture making is the only craft in which the artist cannot afford his own equipment." ?

[DezFoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you are going to post please read what I said. I did not say that all current lenses did not have similar design parameters or look, I said that not ALL Leica lenses have had the same design parameters and accordingly they do not share the same look. 

 

I could say the same to you, you were replying to my comment where I was talking about Leica's ASPH lenses (meaning, modern Karbe design) having a consistent look. Perhaps we both made the same error? I wasn't saying all Leica lenses from the dawn of time have the same look, and I don't think anyone else is here either. 

 

To repeat myself, the look that Leica has striven for has changed over generations of lenses. Admittedly Karbe has been more successful with creating a consistent look across the current lineup than Mandler was, though Mandler was designing with pencil, paper and a fair amount of trial and error, not computers. But, again to repeat myself, the Mandler era had one look, the Karbe era has a different look, but Karbe's lenses are consistent. Aside from my 90 Elmarit, all my lenses are Karbe lenses, and I definitely can pick them out in Lightroom when I've been shooting along side my Nikon.

 

As to the 35 lux pre-ASPH, the current Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 performers similarly (better corrected in some ways, not as well corrected in others) and is about the same size. 

[DezFoto]

So true. The stakes in motion picture making are super critical. Transiting from one FL to another or to a differently designed lens can be catastrophic. That said, the same across-the-board (batch) standards for rendering are not the same for Leica's still photo lenses.

 

Who said, "Motion picture making is the only craft in which the artist cannot afford his own equipment." ?

 

True, I don't think any still lenses are quite as matched as cine lenses are, but you're paying a hell of a lot more for cine lenses and the image circle wouldn't even cover a full frame 35mm still camera's sensor/film gate. (S35 is closer to APS-C)

 

Price vs Performance wise, the Leica Summicron-C lenses are not a bad deal, I think you can get a 3-lens kit for under $30k. Panavision Cine Primos are hella expensive though, as are Cooke's (though they have a "budget" lineup as well). That's why RED has been doing so well, they're offering camera bodies for $15k and you can get PL mount Zeiss Compact Primes for a couple grand each. It's more affordable than it's ever been, but now there's a bunch of kids buy equipment and calling themselves "Cinematographers". *groan*

[pgk]

I could say the same to you, you were replying to my comment where I was talking about Leica's ASPH lenses (meaning, modern Karbe design) having a consistent look. Perhaps we both made the same error? I wasn't saying all Leica lenses from the dawn of time have the same look, and I don't think anyone else is here either. 

 

As to the 35 lux pre-ASPH, the current Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.4 performers similarly (better corrected in some ways, not as well corrected in others) and is about the same size. 

 

If you look at the OP its obvious that the thread is not limited to current lenses and whilst it didn't specify, some posters here are suggesting that ALL Leica lenses share a signature which they quite clearly don't.

 

As for the pre-aspheric Summilux well: “Double Gauss lens design: a review of some classics” Jonas & Thorpe (of Elcan). Quote: “9. Re-optimising the Summilux 35mm f/1.4. – It appears that this simple double Gauss design cannot give improved performance given the field and aperture constraints even with additional glass choices”. The Nokton may well bear this out I haven't really looked into it.

[gberger]

Carlos, please excuse the delay in answering your post, as I've been busy with that blizzard that literally closed down the metropolitan area. Southern cities aren't used to coping with large amounts of snow, so it will take quite some time to return to normal. (My son-in-law sent me a photo of Central Park. Ouch!)

 

I agree that a combination of light and lens characteristics can influence the way we look at a print or a transparency. For example, Zeiss and Leica obviously use different techniques for lens coating, plus the glass they select for various lens elements. IMO, the light also can affect what ends up on the film or sensor.

 

As for the "quality of light," specific locations can have differences in the light. The light in Florence is warm, slightly yellowish and humid that reflects the countryside, while the light in The Hague is cool and blueish, reflecting the North Sea,as seen in Vermeer's paintings. The Sonora Desert light is clear, but reflects the lack of moisture and the slight increase in UV resulting from altitudes between 2500 and 5800 feet, while the light on the Greenland Ice Cap is very cold/bluish, resulting from dry air reflected from the Ice Cap, and almost perpetual overcast. The light in Hawaii is slightly warm and humid from the Pacific, while the light i the Andes is clear, bluish, andneeds a good UV filter. (La Paz is at 12,000 feet)

 

As you pointed out, whether the light is flat or not also could make a difference.

 

As an aside: My grandson is working on his PhD in Optical Physics (he works for Raytheon). He's bound and determine to trade me his Zeiss 1.4/35 Distagon ZM for my 50 Summilux Asph. Yikes.

 

George

[Herr Barnack]

 

...As an aside: My grandson is working on his PhD in Optical Physics (he works for Raytheon). He's bound and determine to trade me his Zeiss 1.4/35 Distagon ZM for my 50 Summilux Asph. Yikes.

 

Don't let him wear you down!  Zeiss makes some nice glass but between those two, I would stick with the 50 Summilux.