Those wonderful old lenses....

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry about subject/composition (my wife loved it ), but just look what the Summarit 50/1.5 (1954) did in terms of 3D "Leica-Glow"

 

[gareth_c]

Nice. I need to try my old summaron on my M8 and see how it fares. Maybe tomorrow...

[Advertisement]

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

[sean_reid]

That lens does indeed give a lovely rendering.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[gareth_c]

Hadn't spotted it first time but there is some 'interesting' stuff going on in that picture. The dogs backleg for instance, the out of focus area has the appearance of motion blur a little. Reminds me of my Canon 50/1.2 in that respect.

[jaapv]

The old Xenon design is indeed known for " swirly" bokeh.

[jaapv]

The old Xenon design is indeed known for " swirly" bokeh.

 

 

And this one has the same "movement" in the OOF areas. It is an interesting phenomen. I suspect it is spherical aberration outside the plane of focus. Again, taken at my wife's insistence

 

 

 

[dcoombs]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Love the expression on his (?) face. Has the look of "you'll be hearing from my agent" about it. LOL

 

I have the same lens, and enjoy its lower contrast when used in the right circumstances.

 

Regards, Doug

[gareth_c]

And this one has the same "movement" in the OOF areas.

 

Yes, it appears even more strongly (?) in that shot. Its an odd phenomenon for sure, and it makes my eyes feel like they aren't functioning at 100%. Of course, i'm sure that heightened by the size of the image and being 'jpeg-d' for the web.

 

Nice pair of dogs though!

[Paul_S]

Again, taken at my wife's insistence

 

Nice pictures, thanks for sharing. Lovely dogs. Good guidance you have in chosing your subject and composition.

[jaapv]

Nothing wrong with the Summarit at 5.6 either...

 

Plus a 100% center crop and a 100 % crop at the edge near the corner. Pretty much to ask from a 53 year old lens...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter Branch]

The 50mm f/1.5 Summarit is notorious for uncorrected Coma. It seems from some of the comments regarding the “Leica Glow” that Leica has wasted its time and effort over the intervening 50 years striving to get rid of such defects.

 

People who tested lenses 30 and more years ago well understood that photographing fur, (and hair), is a very good method of determining how well a lens is corrected. The same is true of areas of fine foliage.

 

I used one of these lenses for a few years on a IIIf in the early ‘60s and got some good pictures, a few of which were published, but it gave the sort of results which these pictures well demonstrate and one soon became conscious of the problems and after a short while they became very irritating.

[peterv]

Jaap, did you and your wife get yourselves a Rhodesian Ridgeback puppy?

 

Nice photo

[jaapv]

The 50mm f/1.5 Summarit is notorious for uncorrected Coma. It seems from some of the comments regarding the “Leica Glow” that Leica has wasted its time and effort over the intervening 50 years striving to get rid of such defects.

 

People who tested lenses 30 and more years ago well understood that photographing fur, (and hair), is a very good method of determining how well a lens is corrected. The same is true of areas of fine foliage.

 

I used one of these lenses for a few years on a IIIf in the early ‘60s and got some good pictures, a few of which were published, but it gave the sort of results which these pictures well demonstrate and one soon became conscious of the problems and after a short while they became very irritating.

 

A bit grumpy today? I don't see anybody suggesting that these old guys are serious contenders in a present-day MTF curve contest. But when one wants to take a flattering shot of one's wife in a romantic hotel, it is a boon to have this specific tool in one's bag of tricks.. horses for courses.

[jaapv]

Jaap, did you and your wife get yourselves a Rhodesian Ridgeback puppy?

 

Nice photo

 

Interesting you should ask that. We did indeed consider getting a Rhodie, but in the end decided to adopt two puppies through an organisation that rescues stray dogs from Greece, Portugal and Spain. These are Portuguese; one has a Rhodesian colouring and type, but will be quite a bit smaller. It is amazing to see how a bit of TLC enables these dogs to recover both physically and mentally from their inauspicious beginning....

[Peter Branch]

A bit grumpy today? I don't see anybody suggesting that these old guys are serious contenders in a present-day MTF curve contest. But when one wants to take a flattering shot of one's wife in a romantic hotel, it is a boon to have this specific tool in one's bag of tricks.. horses for courses.

 

I find myself in something of a dilemma. The convention of internet forums is that if you like something you say so but if you don’t then you just remain silent. This seems to work well most of the time without any unfortunate side effects.

 

However just occasionally something crosses a line and I think this is one of those occasions where two lines have been crossed. Others will obviously disagree.

 

The first line crossed is the proposition that we are looking at a “good” photograph which owes its “attraction” to the attributes of a particular lens. This is presented without any evidence that an alternative lens might give a “better” or just “different” result. I don’t like the “matted hair” look that this lens in particular gives. Which aperture was used matters little as the coma from which the Summarit suffers does not improve much when it is stopped down. The classical method of getting a “soft focus” look is to introduce spherical aberration, (see 90mm f/2.2 Thambar), or to use the Zeiss Softar filters. This approach gives very attractive results for the right sort of subject. Using a Summarit is, in my view, a poor way of attempting to achieve the same result.

 

The second line crossed is the latent proposition that there is a highly desirable quality given the code name “Leica Glow”. It is posited that this near mystical property is exhibited by some of the older, (manually calculated?), designs but is completely absent from the modern, (computer designed?), lenses. I think this is bunkum. The danger is that many of the less experienced visitors to the forum start to believe this stuff and those seeking information prior to putting down their cash for an M8 might be seduced into thinking that there is a “get out of jail” card available to them by buying older second hand Leica lenses which are both much less expensive and have the “Leica Glow” – who could resist?

 

The M8 is in fact far more demanding than film M cameras ever were of optical quality and ruthlessly exposes the “defects” of the older lenses. After a while their deficiencies become very irritating.

[jaapv]

I think you come from a wrong premise. The question is whether a photograph pleases the maker. The tools used are of little interest as such. I happen to like the way some old lenses draw, you obviously don't. That is fine, I have no problem with that how could I? But to draw this into a debate about "better" is moot. Nobody would argue that a photograph taken with a Xenon is "better" than a Summilux asph. That is obviously ridiculous. But I think it is perfectly legitimate to report that these old lenses work surprisingly well on the M8, probably because the worst edges are cut off. And they DO retain the look that made Leica famous all those years ago, call it the Leica Glow for want of a more precise term.

 

As to using a Thambar, a nylon stocking or vaseline on a filter does not produce the same effect as coma, astigmatism, sperical aberration and whatever else, which certainly gives a distinctive look. Whether one likes this look is a different question.

Fortunately experimenting with this kind of thing is not expensive.

The Summarit has one big advantage more modern lenses cannot match: It has excellent UV transmission, making it a required lens for UV photography.

 

This whole argument goes for Russian LTM lenses as well, btw, that are even cheaper.

And we could have the same argument about Lensbabies....

[luigi bertolotti]

The sort of dispute in the two previous posts induces some consideration in myself:

 

- Discovering that very old lenses give specifically appreciable results on M8 has been a real pleasure for people (like me, too) that had such items. I point this : anyway, people who hav these kind of items have surely a sort of affection towards them.

 

- I say "specifically appreciable" in the sense that one can discover that the old lenses' limitations result in a kind of picture that has a taste you don't have with a brand new one... this means "better" in strictly personal mood... so is with Jaap's dog with Summarit, so is for my daughter's pic with Summarex...

 

- Call it "Leica glow" or not... it's not only related to old Leitz glasses , I think... I have a very old Russian 85 LTM... one day I'll try...

 

- Peter, none uf us, think, has any intention to "traviate" the "less experienced visitors" You speak of : I presume that anyone who buys a M8 is rather self-conscious and "expert" to take decisions of his own reagarding lenses... but, time to time, it may happen I post something like an advice that (as an example) if a M8 newcomer has invested heavily on a brand new Leica 75mm, would like sometime to use a 90, that costs a lot... well, a 200 Euros or so Elmar 90 can be a smart choice... and think no M8 user is so stupid to ask me back "but don't You think a new Summicron 90 Asph is better ?"

[Theodor Heinrichsohn]

jaap and luigi,

 

I appreciate your pictures (jaap) and your post (luigi), which reflect my own experience and tastes.

 

Some of my favourite pictures both in b&w (Technical Pan) and colour (slides Kodachrome 25) were made with really old lenses such as the 50 Summitar, 35/2 Summicron 1st version, 90 Elmar 3 element, 65 macro (1st version) with Visoflex, 28 Hektor post WWII and Summaron, etc. It has never been a matter of MTF curves for me and, of course, I have no way of comparing those shots to identical pictures taken with the new aspherical lenses. What matters to me is that I like the results.

 

Of course I use and like and use the new lenses as well, such as the 35 aspherical (not asph), the 21, 24, 28, 50 and 90 asphericals. I also appreciate the 1.2 50 aspherical, which produces great night shots at 1.2.

 

Regards,

Teddy

[jaapv]

I find I have two ranges of lenses in my bag: Sharp, high contrast ones, like the 35 Summicron asph, 90AA, 50/2.8 Elmar-M, Biogon 21,etc, and a range of more "moody"lenses, a Summaron 35/3.5, Summitar 50 LTM, Elmar 4.0/90 LTM, Summilux 75. I use them as I like the subject to come out and it suits me fine.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Laki]

well i just bought some days ago a summaron 3.5/3.5cm just out of curiosity

 

 

and i like the results with it as well