Do lenses have different character when stopped down?

[Csacwp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Often people respond to questions about Summicrons vs Summiluxes, etc., with statements like “how often do you shoot at f/2” or “do you really need the extra stop”. They focus on the performance wide open vs stopped down. I might be crazy, but I’ve noticed that I like the character of some lenses stopped down more than others. For example (at f/8):

 

50 Apo seems more detailed and more 3D compared to the 50 lux

 

90 Apo has a 3D look and renders light falloff beautifully compared to the 90 pre-asph cron and 90 elmarit.

 

28 lux has a moody, 3D look with more bloomy lighting than the 28 cron.

 

Has anybody else noticed this?

[luigi bertolotti]

I have none of the lenses you quote... but I think that is a fact that meny lenses DO perform very fine when stopped down (and for really old lenses, this was a sort of rule)... given that I have many "old" lenses , compared to the really "new" ones, I can say, for instance, that I find my old Summilux 35 , when at f8/11, someway more "pleasant", as overall contrast, than my Summicron 35 asph.. which, by its side, is definitely better than the old Lux when both at f2

Edited December 15, 2017 by luigi bertolotti

[Advertisement]

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

[spydrxx]

I have a bunch of old ( non-Leica rangefinder) cameras with fixed lenses; virtually all of them are fine performers when stopped down between f/5.6-f/8. Wide open they are dogs. My Leica experiences since my first one in 1968, regardless of the lens used, have been that wide open the pre-1970 lenses produced "artistic flare" in varying degrees (even my Summilux & Noctilux), after that things got a lot sharper across the full frame, and stopped down a notch or two, clarity was phenomenal. The R lenses, rightly so, seemed to lag the M ones, but cleaned up very well by the mid-late 70s.

[Csacwp]

I have a 75mm Summilux... it’s razor sharp stopped down but lacks the 3D qualities of the 50 and 90 apos. It’s most evident when photographing things like brick buildings, rocks, etc. All the older Leica (and non-Leica) lenses I have owned performed well stopped down. I’m asking more about the character of the rendering than the sharpness.

[lct]

50 Apo seems more detailed and more 3D compared to the 50 lux

90 Apo has a 3D look and renders light falloff beautifully compared to the 90 pre-asph cron and 90 elmarit. [...]

Has anybody else noticed this?

 

At f/8, honestly no.

[tobey bilek]

I have a 75mm Summilux... it’s razor sharp stopped down but lacks the 3D qualities of the 50 and 90 apos. It’s most evident when photographing things like brick buildings, rocks, etc. All the older Leica (and non-Leica) lenses I have owned performed well stopped down. I’m asking more about the character of the rendering than the sharpness.

 

not into special rendering,  but 75 1.4 does back focus and looks soft until 2.8 .    I took this for normal wide open softness until I got digital and could see actually where the plane of focus was.    It should have been focus recalibrate to 1.4 or at least I could have learned to compensate.

 

traded it for 75 2.0 APO.  

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 75mm Summilux and Summicron do have different characteristics both wide open and stopped down. This is hardly surprising given their specifications and differing dates of design and design parameters. Their characteristics are more noticeable wide open because the Summicron is a more precise rendering lens even wide open due to its aspheric apo design which gives it better correction of aberrations and a 'floating element' which give better performance at closer distances. The Summilux is less well corrected and this shows most at wider apertures and marginally 'softens' fine detail when stopped down. This provides a very slightly 'smoother' looking image at smaller apertures. But the differences really are nuances which can be seen only if you do look for them or are aware that they exist. I have both lenses and don't need both but struggle to decide which I should dispose of so I end up keeping them.

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not in the Lux league, just manged to barge through most of Leica LTM 50 lenses and up to v4 Cron with some taken sideways. 

 

Old Leitz made 50mm lenses might be very different wide open from what they do at f4 and smaller apertures.

Summarit 50 1.5 is very different on f1.5 from f2. Summar is different on close distances wide open, after 3m not so much. Summitar 50/2 is bettwen Summar and Cron at f2. 

Crons from collapsible to V4 I have tried are not so different from wide open, except focus shift. Same for Planar 50/2, Nokton 50/1.5, Jupiter-3 and Elmar-M 50 2.8, with less or no focus shift. 

[jdlaing]

Yes.

[luigi bertolotti]

....

Summarit 50 1.5 is very different on f1.5 from f2. ...

An observation that I agree 100% with (and who knows how many similar findings can be made on classics...  ) ... Summarit at f2 has a "modern" rendering that resembles my Summicron of 1982.... at 1,5 has an "old styele wide open" character that differentiates definitely it fron my "modern" Summilux 50.... I think that, at the end, is for this that we really LOVE Leitz lenses...       

[Peter Kilmister]

My APO Summicron gives great results from wide open f/2 to f/16. Some people seem obsessed with wide open.

 

How necessary is that? Some of the greatest shots taken have used long exposure and closed aperture. It is like looking at a bright object on a bright day with the human eye. The eye naturally closes down and provides an infinite depth of field. Even I can read a newspaper in strong sunlight without spectacles. 

 

You are the photographer. You decide. There are no rules. f/2 or f/16, No boundaries to art. The f/0.95 brigade will shed tears but they can afford it.

[Csacwp]

This has gotten off topic. I wasn’t asking about shooting wide open vs stopped down.

[jmahto]

I would like to see some examples of what you see.

 

Edit: The reason for me asking is that in my experience, stopping down generally loses character (whatever it means) and becomes more clinical. Of course one lens's contrast may be different than other's but that is not character.

Edited December 16, 2017 by jmahto

[pgk]

I would like to see some examples of what you see.

 

Edit: The reason for me asking is that in my experience, stopping down generally loses character (whatever it means) and becomes more clinical. Of course one lens's contrast may be different than other's but that is not character.

 

The problem in illustrating the nuances of difference stopped down is that they are nuances! We are back to the use of words and definitions. Think of it like this though; if older lenses behaved as well stopped down as modern lenses then there would be no need for many photographers (who routinely shoot at smaller apertures) to use any new lenses. Any differences are to do with control of aberrations which is better in modern lenses and gives rise to better delineation of detail - I suspect that this is where the term 'clinical' is used because fine detail is precisely delivered. Older lenses with poorer correction delivered fine detail but with just a marginally slight softness across areas of adjacent high contrast so 'smoothed' out the fine detail giving it a hint less clarity and thus producing an image with lots of detail but detail with a less 'clinical' feel to it. No doubt that this discussion could go on and on but if I print large (24" x 16"+) I just start to see very subtle differences in the way lenses reproduce detail. And all that said, anything but the most careful use of sharpening routines can easily destroy the nuances completely.

 

It should be obvious that all lenses are not the same. Current lenses seem to me to be very well corrected throughout their aperture range whilst some older lenses were poorly corrected wide open but much better corrected stopped down. This is borne out by their MTF graphs.

[jaapv]

The problem in illustrating the nuances of difference stopped down is that they are nuances! We are back to the use of words and definitions. Think of it like this though; if older lenses behaved as well stopped down as modern lenses then there would be no need for many photographers (who routinely shoot at smaller apertures) to use any new lenses. Any differences are to do with control of aberrations which is better in modern lenses and gives rise to better delineation of detail - I suspect that this is where the term 'clinical' is used because fine detail is precisely delivered. Older lenses with poorer correction delivered fine detail but with just a marginally slight softness across areas of adjacent high contrast so 'smoothed' out the fine detail giving it a hint less clarity and thus producing an image with lots of detail but detail with a less 'clinical' feel to it. No doubt that this discussion could go on and on but if I print large (24" x 16"+) I just start to see very subtle differences in the way lenses reproduce detail. And all that said, anything but the most careful use of sharpening routines can easily destroy the nuances completely.

 

It should be obvious that all lenses are not the same. Current lenses seem to me to be very well corrected throughout their aperture range whilst some older lenses were poorly corrected wide open but much better corrected stopped down. This is borne out by their MTF graphs.

 

That is the point; there isn't.

 

This whole idea of character and modern lens precision is linked to:

a. a tendency for wide-open shooting, probably to differentiate from the standard-zoom crowd.

b. the ability to pixel-peep at insane enlargements.

[pgk]

That is the point; there isn't.

 

More or less, unless you print very large and reinforce any marginal differences by use of appropriate subject matter. But I am nitpicking here . The one large print that I have found most effective was one shot with a 1960s Leica lens stopped down to f/11-16 and taken on a hazy day of subject matter which receded quite effectively. Whilst there's plenty of fine detail its never harshly defined and matches the lighting and conditions well. On the other hand I have a shot taken on a current apo of a modern yacht in bright light from above which is extraordinarily detailed and the fine detail is revealed in an almost disconcerting manner (I can read all the instrumentation). But those are extreme examples. I would say that you are absolutely right in 99+% of images and that we could use much older/cheaper lenses to take them with almost  imperceptible differences at smaller apertures - actually I often do!

[MarkP]

I have both lenses and don't need both but struggle to decide which I should dispose of so I end up keeping them.

 

 

Ditto.

[IkarusJohn]

Sure, there’s a difference, but as Paul comments above, it can be subtle.

 

When my father introduced me to photography in the 1960s, with his Kodak Retina and his Voigtlander, he taught me to always shoot stopped down; as far as shutter speed and diffraction would allow, as you were then using the best part of the lens - smack in the middle. Sure, the increased depth of field dealt with flaws like field curvature and focus shift (and some of those old lenses still had coma and ca stopped down - the Voigtlander lenses from the earlier 1950s I remember being particularly unimpressive). The shape of the aperture blades also had an impact. The somewhat corny tricks of those days were inducing God Rays and star shaped patterns with the sun.

 

So, sure, stopped down, it is easier these days to achieve high performance, as my father taught me, but there is still a difference - colour treatment of the lens, fine detail and contrast, edge to edge sharpness, even stopped down.

 

As we’ve said on here so many times, one photographer’s aberration is another’s character, but there are differences between lenses stopped down. Don’t ask me to demonstrate, as I have few lenses of the same focal length, but my perception is that the 28 Summaron is quite different at f/8 to the 28 Summilux and the 50 Summitar very different from the more modern 50 Noctilux and Summilux. Granted, stopped down the Summilux and the Noctilux aren’t that distinguishable, but that’s hardly a surprise.

Edited December 16, 2017 by IkarusJohn