Show us your Summilux-M 28mm f/1.4 ASPH wide open shots

[LarsHP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/14/2021 at 12:18 AM, BJohn said:

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!

I love the colors and tonality of this image.

Do you use a kind of software plug-in or filter? If so, which?

If not, then how did you get this result? ... if I may ask... 🙂

[mmradman]

With M240

 

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!

[Rokkor]

Am 24.7.2019 um 22:25 schrieb BJohn:

Band Shooting with Chasing Whisper (3)

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!

Hi Ben, I like your image styles. For the Classic Presets, which film simulation do you typically use. Do you pay attention when taking the photo or in post processing to lighten it up and do the contrary of dehaze (haze) , lower contrast etc to get the film look? Thanks. 

[Rokkor]

Am 12.5.2021 um 21:33 schrieb LarsHP:

I love the colors and tonality of this image.

Do you use a kind of software plug-in or filter? If so, which?

If not, then how did you get this result? ... if I may ask... 🙂

I would also be curious to learn more. Those colors look amazingly natural. Very nice indeed.

[BJohn]

On 5/12/2021 at 9:33 PM, LarsHP said:

I love the colors and tonality of this image.

Do you use a kind of software plug-in or filter? If so, which?

If not, then how did you get this result? ... if I may ask... 🙂

Oh sorry! Have missed your post! Thank you very much for your kind words! I am using mainly Capture One with some official styles. These styles form the basic look of my photographs and then I'm trying to finetune a bit.

Edited June 24, 2021 by BJohn

[BJohn]

On 6/23/2021 at 10:17 AM, Rokkor said:

Hi Ben, I like your image styles. For the Classic Presets, which film simulation do you typically use. Do you pay attention when taking the photo or in post processing to lighten it up and do the contrary of dehaze (haze) , lower contrast etc to get the film look? Thanks. 

I tended to use the classic presets from Andre Duhme (https://theclassicpresets.com/) but currently I am mainly using Capture One with some official styles as mentioned above. What I am using as a starting point on a regular basis is to directly select Base Characteristics -> Curve: Linear Response. This kind of removes some of the harsh contrast of modern lenses - at least a bit and I like that. Most of the images referenced are edited with the Latitude - Sunbound Styles, e.g. SB-01 - Serengeti. Then I usually add some minor colour / curve adjustments, maybe vignetting, bit of grain. That's my approach

Cheers!

Edited June 24, 2021 by BJohn

[Rokkor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 13 Stunden schrieb BJohn:

I tended to use the classic presets from Andre Duhme (https://theclassicpresets.com/) but currently I am mainly using Capture One with some official styles as mentioned above. What I am using as a starting point on a regular basis is to directly select Base Characteristics -> Curve: Linear Response. This kind of removes some of the harsh contrast of modern lenses - at least a bit and I like that. Most of the images referenced are edited with the Latitude - Sunbound Styles, e.g. SB-01 - Serengeti. Then I usually add some minor colour / curve adjustments, maybe vignetting, bit of grain. That's my approach

Cheers!

Thanks for your answer. Classic Presets are cool and so are the RNI styles. I made the same experience with the linear curves. It feels more natural. Somehow modern lenses look great and at the same time it can be too clinical also for my taste. Will take a look at the Sunbound Styles. Sound interesting and your images look great. 

[Herr Barnack]

The 28 Summilux creates such beautiful results. 

A question for anyone who owns both the 28mm and 35mm Summilux:  Is the rendering of the 35 close to that of the 28, or is it significantly different?

Edited December 22, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[rcusick]

3 hours ago, Herr Barnack said:

The 28 Summilux creates such beautiful results. 

A question for anyone who owns both the 28mm and 35mm Summilux:  Is the rendering of the 35 close to that of the 28, or is it significantly different?

They're different.  The 35mm fle is very crisp and transparent.  The 28mm summilux is warmer and has a bit more subtle contrast.  

[Herr Barnack]

16 minutes ago, rcusick said:

They're different.  The 35mm fle is very crisp and transparent.  The 28mm summilux is warmer and has a bit more subtle contrast.  

So I'm going to want one of each, for different uses.

My wife will be overjoyed to hear the good news. 😁

Edited December 22, 2021 by Herr Barnack

[Shlomo]

Mea Shearim 2019

M10, Summilux 28mm

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!

[Jeff S]

Anthropomorphism. It’s the photographer’s responsibility to make non-boring pics.  

Jeff

 

[Tommijoonas_]

7 hours ago, Steven said:

The 35 FLE is transparent and boring 

The 28 Lux is cinematic and gorgeous 

Interesting! How would you compare Leica Q2 lens to these? Is it more like 35 FLE or 28 Lux? 

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, Steven said:

Sure. But his responsibility is easier to bear with an interesting lens! The 35 FLE renders like a Sony lens. Other very credible member of this forum have backed me up on this, Jeff, if you remember... 

I recall, and have different opinions and priorities. I don’t know of a single truly wonderful picture that prompted a viewer to ask or care about the gear used (except maybe by a bunch of forum gearaholics). Lots of people here and elsewhere are also enchanted by the bokeh craze.  Bores me silly. I’d rather someone use deep depth of field and fill the frame side to side and front to back with interesting content and strong composition/geometry, and generally without pretty colors. Of course there are many possible shooting styles and preferences. But great gear has never been the basis for great photography; it’s always been a challenge. If one can’t make fine pics with the 35 FLE, or most any Leica lens, the problem is rarely the lens.

Jeff

[Erato]

It's all in your mind.

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!

Mounted on M10-P

[SoarFM]

On 12/23/2021 at 9:51 AM, Steven said:

The 35 FLE is transparent and boring 

The 28 Lux is cinematic and gorgeous 

What does “transparent” mean? I’ve never heard that used to describe a lens.

And “cinematic”, also an ill defined term. What I’ve read about cinema lenses, especially Leitz, is that they are breathtakingly expensive and highly corrected.

Much of the cinematic look seems to be done with color grading or choosing film vs. digital. 

What do you mean by cinematic?

[Shlomo]

An alien plant in my office.

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!

[Shlomo]

Mea Shearim, Jerusalem.

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!

[IkarusJohn]

I’m with Jeff on this - cinematic, transparent, blah, blah, blah … it’s all nonsense, really.  What we have is a combination of good composition (see @Shlomo’s image immediately above), good exposure, good processing and lenses with varying strengths and weaknesses.  What matters is the image.

Like @Artin, I’ve been taking photographs since the late 1960s with whatever gear was to hand.  I haven’t been to Cuba, I don’t have an archive of 4 billion images, nor do I expose 100 rolls of film a day.  I claim no “credibility”.  But, I’ve been taking pictures a long time, on film and digital, and I’ve been looking at other people’s photos for just as long.  I am an equal opportunity buster of hubris, and I’m sorry to say that a clear majority of images taken to show the strengths, cinematic look and character of lenses are, frankly, rubbish.  I see good images from good photographers who think about the content.

If you want to see character lenses look at the weird and wonderful images in the old glass thread.  For my money, I have a few older lenses for their quirks (I don’t think any of them has a “steel rim”, whatever that is), but I’d happily buy and use pretty much any current Leica lens.  Transparent?  Clinical?  Boring?  Pffft!  It’s a lens, transparency is the idea … they do have varying strengths, and still some flaws, but you can safely assume that the current model is better than the previous one!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[hdmesa]

38 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I’m with Jeff on this - cinematic, transparent, blah, blah, blah … it’s all nonsense, really.  What we have is a combination of good composition (see @Shlomo’s image immediately above), good exposure, good processing and lenses with varying strengths and weaknesses.  What matters is the image.

Like @Artin, I’ve been taking photographs since the late 1960s with whatever gear was to hand.  I haven’t been to Cuba, I don’t have an archive of 4 billion images, nor do I expose 100 rolls of film a day.  I claim no “credibility”.  But, I’ve been taking pictures a long time, on film and digital, and I’ve been looking at other people’s photos for just as long.  I am an equal opportunity buster of hubris, and I’m sorry to say that a clear majority of images taken to show the strengths, cinematic look and character of lenses are, frankly, rubbish.  I see good images from good photographers who think about the content.

If you want to see character lenses look at the weird and wonderful images in the old glass thread.  For my money, I have a few older lenses for their quirks (I don’t think any of them has a “steel rim”, whatever that is), but I’d happily buy and use pretty much any current Leica lens.  Transparent?  Clinical?  Boring?  Pffft!  It’s a lens, transparency is the idea … they do have varying strengths, and still some flaws, but you can safely assume that the current model is better than the previous one!

"Cinematic" has always been a strange term to apply to wide open shots (this thread) since until recently, most cinema is shot stopped down to some degree. When I hear "cinematic", I think of a lens with low contrast but good sharpness in areas of high-frequency detail. But really "cinematic" has always had more to do with lighting than it does the lens. 

What the 28 Lux wide open does give us is a very nice light falloff that can't be easily duplicated in LR/C1. This combined with more shallow DOF at close distances has a unique character – which of course is useless without the image itself having character.

The image is what matters, but the character or rendering of a given lens is still an interesting conversation – otherwise we can delete all the gear forums from the site and only talk "art".