Show me your favorite lenses

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, TheGodParticle/Hari said:

Long story short, the older lenses provide more character to the story, while the newer ones provide noticeable corrections/improvements that remove/reduce imperfections and help create images close to perfection. Within the boundaries of physics and cost. 

Interesting long story short. Once I will try an old lens, I'll probably understand better what the "character" is all about, and I'm very curious. But so far, based on your definitions, If I had to choose, I think I'm more for the modern lenses. I like an image as clear, sharp and with less imperfections as possible. I would also add the word objective. But I know that for someone, these "imperfections" are not problems, but preferred choices.

[Advertisement]

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

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Here are two “torture test” samples from the apo50/2.

Normally you would see tons of purple and green fringing, which you almost see none of here.

These samples haven’t been edited in software, beyond any corrections applied in-camera. 

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!

[Dennis]

1 minute ago, TheGodParticle/Hari said:

Here are two “torture test” samples from the apo50/2.

Normally you would see tons of purple and green fringing, which you almost see none of here.

And I believe it looks better without fringing

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

Interesting long story short. Once I will try an old lens, I'll probably understand better what the "character" is all about, and I'm very curious. But so far, based on your definitions, If I had to choose, I think I'm more for the modern lenses. I like an image as clear, sharp and with less imperfections as possible. I would also add the word objective. But I know that for someone, these "imperfections" are not problems, but preferred choices.

As I said, different tools that provide different results. Some dreamy, some very well corrected. 
If you haven’t yet, you should try the Noctilux 50/f1, the Summilux 75 or even the 35 steel rim. Lots of beautiful character lenses to choose from! 

[Musotographer]

50 minutes ago, Dennis said:

@TheGodParticle/Hari + @Boojay Thank you both for your nice words, I really appreciate it 🙏 And yes, I'm very looking forward to shoot again in large gathering, hopefully very soon.

It's not a statistics, but i guess more people in this forum prefer old lenses rather than modern ones. Could be true? For example you use a modern M10M with an old 50 rigid. Why not a 50 Apo or just a 50 Cron V... Just curious. I'm asking because I never tried an old lens, so I just guess the reasons reading your threads.

I don't know how the older/modern lens divide breaks down on here - I imagine it shifts, and some individuals have changing preferences too.

As to the Rigid 50 - I have tried several 50s, some I have liked more than others (e.g. the Asph Summilux I liked a lot, but as an everyday 50 I found it a little on the large side, so it tended to stay at home too much) but of all of them, and especially on the Monochrom(s), the Rigid I found to give the most beautiful results, and as it is small, beautifully built and relatively inexpensive, it's become my standard 50. (I also have a Jupiter-3 and a Zeiss C-Sonnar - but I prefer the Rigid.) 

I have tried the Apo only in the Leica store, and though it is clearly a superlative lens I couldn't possibly afford it, even if I were desperate to have it. I could only stretch to the M10M by selling two cameras and a couple of lenses!

I must confess that I do enjoy using old lenses which have some history behind them - I'm sure many people think that that's just sentimental rubbish!

[lct]

2 minutes ago, TheGodParticle/Hari said:

Here are two “torture test” samples from the apo50/2.

Seems like i'm a better torturer than you are . M240 + 50/2 apo.

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!

[Dennis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Musotographer said:

I have tried the Apo only in the Leica store, and though it is clearly a superlative lens I couldn't possibly afford it

That could be also a reason why many people prefer an old lens, or another brand: based on the price. 

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Just now, lct said:

Seems like i'm a better torturer than you are . M240 + 50/2 apo.

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!

Dang. That looks as bad as any normal lens 😱

[Musotographer]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

That could be also a reason why many people prefer an old lens, or another brand: based on the price. 

Very much so! Mr/Ms Billionaire can afford the latest and greatest - but they probably miss out on a lot of fun thereby.

[rpittal]

34 minutes ago, lct said:

Seems like i'm a better torturer than you are . M240 + 50/2 apo.

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!

Sure that's not a Red Bud tree?

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

27 minutes ago, Musotographer said:

Very much so! Mr/Ms Billionaire can afford the latest and greatest - but they probably miss out on a lot of fun thereby.

Monochrom CCD + Industar 50/3.5, a low cost Russian lens which can be easily had for about €50

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!

[lct]

17 minutes ago, rpittal said:

Sure that's not a Red Bud tree?

Would be a puple/green one then . 

[AphotoBerlin]

vor 55 Minuten schrieb TheGodParticle/Hari:

Monochrom CCD + Industar 50/3.5, a low cost Russian lens which can be easily had for about €50

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!

ha, I was born there! Nice picture. 

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

5 minutes ago, AphotoBerlin said:

ha, I was born there! Nice picture. 

Fairytale town. Such a beautiful, peaceful place. 

[adan]

For me personally (and sorry to bore the old-timers who have heard this many times before):

1) I find that older lenses, at least back to the 1970s, image just as well as (and in some ways better than) the modern lenses. With a few exceptions - it is a spectrum. That has nothing to do with "character"

Here is an f/2.8 image with a 1974 90mm Tele-Elmarit-M (not always considered one of the best). Full image and detail crop (M10).

Is there any modern lens that would offer a significant improvement over the detail it records? Is there a rational reason to carry something larger and heavier - and yes, more expensive?

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!

 

2) The main reason Leitz/Leica lenses "of a certain age" image better, for me, is primarily lower global contrast (more shadow and/or highlight information) for a given exposure. Especially with color slide film (professionals did not generally use color neg film - that was for family snapshots and the lower forms of posed "grip-and-grin" wedding pictures of the past...

https://www.friartux.com/blog/post/shades-of-blue-vintage-wedding

....and now with digital.

High contrast limits dynamic range - and in fact can cause/emphasize purple fringing, as blown whites or blues (sky) bleed into surrounding colors or black. See lct's example.

If a picture needs more contrast, that is much, much, much easier to add back, than trying to recover blocked shadows or blown highlights.

The second reason is that those same lenses generally produce more neutral, accurate color, compared to the red/magenta/purple "skin tones above all else" bias of the post-1989 Leica (not Leitz) lenses. Purple bias cannot be fixed with WB alone, without distorting other colors. I prefer skin tones that look sun-tanned, not sun-burned (nor pale and washed-out).

And additonally, I like dark architectural green paint to render as green, not as red/magenta-infected brown or gray.

(1980 90mm Summicron-M, M10)

Note that the greenish 1980 lens does not de-emphasize real magentas and reds. If anything, it enhances them and makes them *pop*, as they contrast with the overall greener rendering.

See: complementary colors - an essential part of understanding art and design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_colors

Now, there is room for taste in picking color rendering - but that is my taste.

And with neg-film, higher contrast can sometimes carve a crisper image into the fuzzy gelatin.

I had a very contrasty Zeiss G 90mm Sonnar back in 2001 that did that nicely on cloudy days on B&W film, but under raw sunlight (which is the norm here in Colorado, 300+ days a year), it would overexpose and block highlights (skin), and underexpose shadows (clothes) to blank film - in the same exposure!

I switched to Leica M and 1980s lenses - much better control of tonality.

How lenses of different ages render is also not a hard line. It is a continuum, and there are fuzzy edges. I like the color of my 50 Summicron v.5, and the contrast is generally acceptable (but one must remember that - optically - it is really just a 50mm v.4 from 1980, repackaged in a new barrel). The 75 APO-Summicron and v.1 35 Summilux ASPH (now a 26-year-old design) are also generally acceptable.

But I would not use a 35 Summicron ASPH if someone paid me $3700! Too contrasty, too pink. And too heavy, compared to its predecessors.

[farnz]

2 hours ago, Dennis said:

@TheGodParticle/Hari + @Boojay Thank you both for your nice words, I really appreciate it 🙏 And yes, I'm very looking forward to shoot again in large gathering, hopefully very soon.

It's not a statistics, but i guess more people in this forum prefer old lenses rather than modern ones. Could be true? For example you use a modern M10M with an old 50 rigid. Why not a 50 Apo or just a 50 Cron V... Just curious. I'm asking because I never tried an old lens, so I just guess the reasons reading your threads.

Hi Dennis,

There are many people here (myself included) who like to use older lenses for the 'character' they offer that modern lenses usually don't.  Some people consider lens character to be uncorrected aberrations while others see it as an opportunity for a lens to add a certain mystique or 'something extra' to some pictures.  For some people the newest, sharpest lenses aren't always the best lens for a particular picture.

If you'd like pictorial examples of what older lenses can offer then I invite you to browse through "The view through older glass" thread at your leisure and enjoy the extras that older lenses can offer.

Pete.

[Dennis]

25 minutes ago, adan said:

Is there any modern lens that would offer a significant improvement over the detail it records? Is there a rational reason to carry something larger and heavier - and yes, more expensive?

Thank you as always for the long detailed explanation. Yes, it is the million dollar question! Based on that, it doesn't make sense to spend, nowadays, almost $6k for a brand new 35 FLE, because I'm sure I can find a very similar performance in another 35 lens, investing much less. Does it make sense?

25 minutes ago, adan said:

The main reason Leitz/Leica lenses "of a certain age" image better, for me, is primarily lower global contrast (more shadow and/or highlight information) for a given exposure.

High contrast limits dynamic range

100% Agree. Better to have a lower contrast exposure, with huge DR,  then use the right editing to add contrast, if desired 

22 minutes ago, farnz said:

There are many people here (myself included) who like to use older lenses for the 'character' they offer that modern lenses usually don't. Some people consider lens character to be uncorrected aberrations while others see it as an opportunity for a lens to add a certain mystique or 'something extra' to some pictures. For some people the newest, sharpest lenses aren't always the best lens for a particular picture.

It makes totally sense. I'll take a look at the link, I guess I'll discover some wonders

Edited June 7, 2020 by Dennis

[Guest JMF]

35 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Thank you as always for the long detailed explanation. Yes, it is the million dollar question! Based on that, it doesn't make sense to spend, nowadays, almost $6k for a brand new 35 FLE, because I'm sure I can find a very similar performance in another 35 lens, investing much less. Does it make sense?

100% Agree. Better to have a lower contrast exposure, with huge DR,  then use the right editing to add contrast, if desired 

It makes totally sense. I'll take a look at the link, I guess I'll discover some wonders

Hi Dennis,

to complement the above comments, 

I'll add that since you're shooting weddings, gentle skin texture-tone rendering is paramount and to my understanding, the latest 35 Summicron Asph, 35 Summilux FLE and 50 Summilux Asph regular or Black Chrome , as well as 75 Summicron aren't the ideal lenses . I had them and sold them as I found them too harsh to my liking.

I know some other photographers present here on LUF swear by them so I advise you to test if you can before purchasing a lens.

I sometimes used the 50 Apo with a Tiffen 1/8 Black Promist filter even when shooting that lens wide open.

Best, JM.

Edited June 7, 2020 by JMF

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pgk]

1 hour ago, adan said:

The main reason Leitz/Leica lenses "of a certain age" image better, for me, is primarily lower global contrast (more shadow and/or highlight information) for a given exposure.

Sorry but this is a myth. Lower contrast lenses do not record better shadow and/or highlight information. They cannot do so. They decrease the shadow information available. Think about it, how can two lenses differ in the contrast they produce. Low contrast = more flare/aberrations. High contrast = less flare/less aberrations. Higher contrast lenses produce more information on film/sensor NOT less. If they magically enable a higher dynamic range to be recorded then manufacturers would be producing much lower contrast lenses and relying on software to produce the desired image with greater tonality. But they don't because its doesn't work this way. For anyone who thinks it does here's the challenge - come up with a good technical explanation.

I will add that I have some very old lenses (150+ years) which are very low contrast - does anyone think that these will record more shadow and/or highlight detail? In case anyone does I can assure them that they absolutely do not.

Edited June 7, 2020 by pgk

[Guest JMF]

43 minutes ago, pgk said:

Sorry but this is a myth. Lower contrast lenses do not record better shadow and/or highlight information. They cannot do so. They decrease the shadow information available. 

Looks like we're entering the Barnack Bar here, I guess you're saying that a lens offering more resolution is likely to record more informations. But shooting at the same f stop a contrastier lens will not help you see into the shadows ...