50 Elmar-M vs SummiCron/Lux

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

I am rather amused by the modern preoccupation with "Bokeh" as I was active in photography for about 40 years before the term appeared in USA photo publications (about 1998). Wikipedia delves into the origins of the term in Japanese, noting related usage, including: "refer to being mentally hazy, befuddled, childish, senile, or playing stupid" 

 

1997, by Mike Johnston, in a re-spelling of the Japanese term...

 https://luminous-landscape.com/bokeh-in-pictures/

He has since elaborated on the subject in several posts on his TOP site. Since the term has been so misused, he mostly avoids it by just referring to out of focus blur.

He also, regretfully, first published the term ‘bokeh king’ in a picture caption for the 35 Summicron M  v.4.   As I recall, he hadn’t fully tested the lens and later found that its bokeh was not very good at wide apertures and close distances. Nonetheless, that term seems to have stuck, too.

Jeff

Edited July 13, 2020 by Jeff S

[Ko.Fe.]

3 hours ago, TomB_tx said:

I am rather amused by the modern preoccupation with "Bokeh" as I was active in photography for about 40 years before the term appeared in USA photo publications (about 1998). Wikipedia delves into the origins of the term in Japanese, noting related usage, including: "refer to being mentally hazy, befuddled, childish, senile, or playing stupid" 

I guess as an old engineer I lack the aesthetic sensitivity to care much about it - as I look at the subject, not so much the background.

 

I'm broadcast engineer and ex graphic artist and just a dude who is spending every possible chance to look at modern art in museums and galleries. And I have many photo books from BW film masters.

Would it be well taken, processed, edited motion picture, impressionists painting or Karsh taken portrait I never look at bokeh. If quality of the subject is present, bokeh is irrelevant.  

Or maybe they all knew how to avoid crappy bokeh...

[UliWer]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb farnz:

I'm pretty sure that both the 50 Summilux pre-asph 'v3' and Summicron v5 (optically unaltered from the v4) were both Mandler designs weren't they?

Pete.

Yes, but the culprit in this case was the Summilux asph. - Karbe‘s most popular „magic“ masterpeace.

Though to tell the truth: I still think the Summilux asph the best usable „working horse“ in the Leica lens catalogue - present and past. It took over the role the Elmar had for decades, not because of any magic - which only exists in this forum - but just because of its reliability in every situation you may think of. Of course it is much more expensive than the Elmar of times long ago, which may tell you something about modern lens design in general and Leica‘s price policy in particular. 

Everybody who does not look at the price - which of course is unreasonable - should use a 50mm Summilux asph. 

[Stealth3kpl]

17 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

 

I'm broadcast engineer and ex graphic artist and just a dude who is spending every possible chance to look at modern art in museums and galleries. And I have many photo books from BW film masters.

Would it be well taken, processed, edited motion picture, impressionists painting or Karsh taken portrait I never look at bokeh. If quality of the subject is present, bokeh is irrelevant.  

Or maybe they all knew how to avoid crappy bokeh...

I wonder if this image would be so strong if it had distracting or no bokeh

 

[farnz]

1 hour ago, UliWer said:

Yes, but the culprit in this case was the Summilux asph. - Karbe‘s most popular „magic“ masterpeace.

Ah, my apologies, in my mind I wrongly had it down as the pre-asph.  I owned the 50 Summilux asph for 10 years and while I liked it I never considered it a special lens in the way that the f/1 Noctilux is but a very well designed lens that produced crisp, 'clean' pictures.  I prefer the pre-asph or the Black Chrome versions now although I'm straying off topic so I'll stop.

Pete.

[Ko.Fe.]

3 hours ago, Stealth3kpl said:

I wonder if this image would be so strong if it had distracting or no bokeh

 

To me it is absolutely doesn't matter. Personally, for portraits like this I prefer environment to be included, not blurred.

Here are the portraits from one of the book I have. Many doesn't have bokeh and it doesn't matter, if not better.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2009/oct/18/jane-bown-60-years-portraits

 

Some of mine environmental portraits where I don't feel I need any bokeh.

(M4-2 with 35 f2.5 lenses)

 

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!

 

 

If in museum, gallery I prefer portraits with surrounding details included as well.

Something like this: 

https://www.google.com/search?q=gioconda&rlz=1C1GCEJ_enCA863CA863&sxsrf=ALeKk00lCDyQbTDM68OnTSuX0FRBqRVw1g:1594759999057&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiOnfv5z83qAhWFMH0KHd64BGcQ_AUoAXoECCAQAw&biw=1680&bih=939#imgrc=5YAAh5Ixh1jxbM

Edited July 14, 2020 by Ko.Fe.

[Stealth3kpl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said:

Here are the portraits from one of the book I have. Many doesn't have bokeh and it doesn't matter, if not better.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2009/oct/18/jane-bown-60-years-portraits

Yes, I have this book also.

Pete

[Alberti]

On 7/13/2020 at 9:42 PM, lct said:

Above 50/1.4 asph, below 50/1.4 v3, both at f/2.8.

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!

Interesting comparison. After all the talk by puts et al about the lack of detail in the field (on the plane of focus) this shows how good it is to see a decent lens (the second one) with normal (that is invisible) contours of light - no silly diafragma's). I had the '69 Cron sold it for the Version V, and indeed it is a great performer, though sometimes the ver.5 dingy shapes annoy me while the V3 in my memory was more even. Like shown here.

Back to the original poster: the Elmar-M will have the a character with more significant diafragm artifacts. Less pleasing?

In my Canon F1.4 LTM I avoid certain diaphragmas in certain pictures, they can spoil a picture . . stopped down a bit,  the Canolux as I like to call it, is no match for a good old 'Lux pre-asph. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Alberti

[Alberti]

I have seen that the Elmar-M 50mm comes with two types of coating:

• older (say before 2001) has a  bluish hue
• the later ones at till 2005 is brown, sort of classical.

What is that difference? What does it compensate for? Is the newer one better for color?

[tomasis7]

On 7/13/2020 at 10:19 PM, TomB_tx said:

I am rather amused by the modern preoccupation with "Bokeh" as I was active in photography for about 40 years before the term appeared in USA photo publications (about 1998). Wikipedia delves into the origins of the term in Japanese, noting related usage, including: "refer to being mentally hazy, befuddled, childish, senile, or playing stupid" 

I guess as an old engineer I lack the aesthetic sensitivity to care much about it - as I look at the subject, not so much the background.

high aperture taking shots (without bokeh) gives photographer a good challenge. Today we have high iso that looks good, so no reason for "low light" lenses aka film cameras. 

Well, today some people are bored home and took photos of every object they have. Though it is not wrong with test samples. Heck the old leica lenses are good to go. Like 28mm Summaron. I love some 1920 century lenses. Astimagtic, Tessar.. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by tomasis7

[lct]

5 hours ago, Alberti said:

I have seen that the Elmar-M 50mm comes with two types of coating:

• older (say before 2001) has a  bluish hue
• the later ones at till 2005 is brown, sort of classical.

What is that difference? What does it compensate for? Is the newer one better for color?

I'm not aware of such a difference. Perhaps what you're comparing is the Elmar-M 50/2.8 to the Elmar 50/2.8 which comes from the sixties with a different lens design, rotating lens barrel, longer focus throw and different coating indeed. IQ wise the Elmar is less contrasty, has more flare and is not as sharp as the Elmar-M. 

[Alberti]

Well, this one looks blue to me:

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!

while I also saw another one, brownish:

Now, are these just artifacts?

See by the way that the first one is later than the second one . . .

 

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by Alberti

[wizard]

Am 14.7.2020 um 18:34 schrieb UliWer:

Everybody who does not look at the price - which of course is unreasonable - should use a 50mm Summilux asph. 

If you think the price of the Summilux 50mm asph is unreasonable, then what do say about the price of the Summicron 50mm apo asph? Outrageously unreasonable?

[wizard]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb Alberti:

Now, are these just artifacts?

Well, the angle of incidence of light is different, so that may explain the different color. But the color of coatings in general may vary somewhat, from batch to batch that is. I have have two Summicron 50mm v5 lenses which are not far apart in serial numbers. One has a more reddish coating, the other one more purple/blueish. Performance of both lenses is the same. I do not believe Leica has changed the coating of the Elmar-M 50mm at any point in time.

[lct]

42 minutes ago, Alberti said:

Well, this one looks blue to me:

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!

while I also saw another one, brownish:

Now, are these just artifacts?

See by the way that the first one is later than the second one . . .

Just different reflections i suspect. My 3993*** is rather brownish but blueish near a window as well.

[Alberti]

On 7/16/2020 at 2:16 PM, wizard said:

If you think the price of the Summilux 50mm asph is unreasonable, then what do say about the price of the Summicron 50mm apo asph? Outrageously unreasonable?

One way around getting an overly-expensive Apo 50 is calling a normal 50mm Summicron from 2000 an  'asph'. This seller wants to make someone happy that way. 

 

[Alberti]

Thanks Wizard and lct: I understand these are then artifacts, reflections.

My Summicrons are very brownish at all times by the way.

[wizard]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Alberti:

This seller wants to make someone happy that way. 

Nice try. My black Summicron 50 is of similar vintage (389xxxx) and I paid less than half of what this seller wants. My lens was second hand, but like new in box. That was about 10 years ago though, and my lens is not coded.

[logan2z]

On 7/13/2020 at 1:19 PM, TomB_tx said:

I am rather amused by the modern preoccupation with "Bokeh" 

+1 

And I feel the same way about this constant obsession over 'sharpness', which seems to dominate most lens discussions.  Sharpness and the quality of bokeh have little to do with what makes a great photograph IMHO. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Anthony Healy]

Why pay all that money for a superior lens only to soften the result. A pinhole camera would be cheaper and probably not as soft.