What defines "Modern" Leica M Lenses for the M10-R?

[Erato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"Modern Lenses" -- More light, higher performance, but compact focusing mechanisms.
What is the definition of the best performance?

According to the interview of Peter Karbe previously:
"Maintain a high sharpness from infinity to close focus. The old Summicron is a Mandler design with high performance. It’s a very good lens but there is a variation when you change distance. You have a performance-fall.

Meanwhile, when you stop down the aperture, you have a little unsharpness in the center of the field.

When I look at the qualities in the 50mm Summilux f/1.4 with the pearl bokeh in black and white, accurate colors and high contrast, or the soft but detailed look of the old 50mm Summicron f/2.0 II, or the dreamy "controlled overflow of light" look of the 50mm Noctilux f/0.95 … I know you can’t make one lens that contains all these qualities at the same time."

IMO, Optical-perfect lenses may not exist, but we understand how fabulous it can be if you know how to use it precisely!

Edited July 23, 2020 by Erato

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ash]

I am not quite sure if I am recalling it correctly . I understand that Leica raised the bar when they developed the TL lenses     to achieve full format quality in APS size. ( I have never understood why they do not promote it that much) The first M lens that followed and utilized these latest developments was the APO Summicron 50. So in that respect I would call that lens and anything after  a modern Leica M lens.

[Mikep996]

Can anybody really notice the difference in a photograph shot with these various generation Leica lenses and viewed at normal distances?  Sure, the 40+MP sensors (like they used to say about a 24MP sensors  )  have sufficient resolution to support extreme pixel-peeping to identify subtle differences at the edges, etc.  But that's like examining a new car with a high-powered magnifying glass to see if there are any paint imperfections visible under such 'enlargement.'  It has nothing to do with "seeing" the car (or photograph) as we actually view  it.  

It would be interesting to see the same scene as a DNG shot with various generations of Leica lenses, each selected from the M10R's lens list. 

 

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

11 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

Watching many of the M10-R videos, Leica leaders talk about modern Leica M lenses may be sharper on the new 40.89 MP sensors compared to older Leica M glass. What defines Modern Leica M glass? Does this mean Leica M lenses designed/manufactured from 2010? 

You're just wrestling with the vagaries of language. There is no reason for there to be a precise definition of 'modern' any more than there is a definition of 'light', or 'small'. 

As to how the word might be used by Leica people, I would take it as any lens designed primarily for a digital Leica, which probably does encompass your 2010 timeline. But the usages suggested by others (e.g. Mandler/Karbe) are equally relevant.

[pgk]

2 hours ago, Mikep996 said:

It would be interesting to see the same scene as a DNG shot with various generations of Leica lenses, each selected from the M10R's lens list. 

In reality a great photograph isn't about the ultimate lens or latest camera, its all about using what you have when an opportunity arises which will produce a great photograph. If the combination you have with you happens to be the latest Leica M and a current aspheric lens then perhaps it might have state-of-the-art technical excellence as well, but this is always secondary providing the image is powerful enough and the equipment used is adequate enough.

As for 'high resolution and contrast', well repro app lenses with defined magnification factors have been available for a long time. These are fairly arbitrary parameters and as I have said before, they only provide data on one aspect of a len's performance. As an extreme example, back in the 1860s J H Dallmeyer produced a lens with a soft-focus facility which outraged many who believed In 'contrast and resolution' as being an essential aim of the photographic lens maker. Soft focus lenses are still available though.

Whilst the combination of the latest M and aspheric lenses adds more choice, it shouldn't necessarily be a technical aim point as such. I am sure that Mandler era M lenses will produce great images on the latest M camera (whatever its specification and whenever it is launched) despite 'lacking' the technical specifications of later and technically more competent lenses.

[LBJ2]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You're just wrestling with the vagaries of language. There is no reason for there to be a precise definition of 'modern' any more than there is a definition of 'light', or 'small'. 

As to how the word might be used by Leica people, I would take it as any lens designed primarily for a digital Leica, which probably does encompass your 2010 timeline. But the usages suggested by others (e.g. Mandler/Karbe) are equally relevant.

My question:  What defines modern M lenses? You wrote "You're just wrestling with the vagaries of language" Perhaps. 

Can you tell me where I might find more about the 2010 timeline? I do remember reading some mention about 2010 and Leica M lenses designed or redesigned for digital. As I mentioned above, Peter Karbe talked about Generation III lenses with Asph. and FLE, but it looks like Gen III lenses began production in 1989 and I "believe" the first Digital M camera was the M8, that came out in 2006. 

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, pgk said:

In reality a great photograph isn't about the ultimate lens or latest camera, its all about using what you have when an opportunity arises which will produce a great photograph. If the combination you have with you happens to be the latest Leica M and a current aspheric lens then perhaps it might have state-of-the-art technical excellence as well, but this is always secondary providing the image is powerful enough and the equipment used is adequate enough.

As for 'high resolution and contrast', well repro app lenses with defined magnification factors have been available for a long time. These are fairly arbitrary parameters and as I have said before, they only provide data on one aspect of a len's performance. As an extreme example, back in the 1860s J H Dallmeyer produced a lens with a soft-focus facility which outraged many who believed In 'contrast and resolution' as being an essential aim of the photographic lens maker. Soft focus lenses are still available though.

Whilst the combination of the latest M and aspheric lenses adds more choice, it shouldn't necessarily be a technical aim point as such. I am sure that Mandler era M lenses will produce great images on the latest M camera (whatever its specification and whenever it is launched) despite 'lacking' the technical specifications of later and technically more competent lenses.

"In reality a great photograph isn't about the ultimate lens or latest camera,"  A very nice statement. I think we all agree.

And yes. M lenses old and new will Absolutely perform on the new higher MPs sensors. 

On the topic of APO, If you get a chance to review the video I posted ( Lot to learn in this video ), listen to what Peter Karbe specifically says about APO correction.  "If you want to have such a high contrast, you need to have APO correction. It's very important" - Peter Karbe at about 1:20-1:23 in the video.

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by LBJ2

[scroy]

9 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

 

On the topic of APO, If you get a chance to review the video I posted ( Lot to learn in this video ), listen to what Peter Karbe specifically says about APO correction.  "If you want to have such a high contrast, you need to have APO correction. It's very important" - Peter Karbe at about 1:20-1:23 in the video.

 

I listened to it a couple of times, I believe this implies micro-contrast as the core design goal vs. overall contrast. If I'm not off-based then it make sense to me on why mating these lenses to higher resolution sensors would give the best overall performance and that 3D pop.

[pgk]

27 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

"If you want to have such a high contrast, you need to have APO correction. It's very important" - Peter Karbe at about 1:20-1:23 in the video.

Indeed, and repro lenses have had 'APO' correction for a very long time. They were corrected for specific distances (usually fairly fixed reproduction ratios) though and what is relatively new is the correction available utilsing aspheric surfaces AND that correction is available over the whole range of focus due to FLE adjustment (which has also been available for a long time - some CF Hasselblad lenses had this available like the recent M lenses as a mechanical correction). There is no doubt that the latest M lenses are both optical and mechanical marvels, but straightforward technical prowess in itself does not improve images.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I doubt that even Max Berek designed.lenses single-handed.  The modern lenses.are clearly team efforts and in many cases involve collaboration with other companies (l-mount especially).  But Leica has an auteur ‘tradition.  The influence of the traditional Leica goals is very strong in M lenses but what about S lenses?  Who was running the design team when those were created?

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

My question:  What defines modern M lenses? You wrote "You're just wrestling with the vagaries of language" Perhaps. 

Can you tell me where I might find more about the 2010 timeline? I do remember reading some mention about 2010 and Leica M lenses designed or redesigned for digital. As I mentioned above, Peter Karbe talked about Generation III lenses with Asph. and FLE, but it looks like Gen III lenses began production in 1989 and I "believe" the first Digital M camera was the M8, that came out in 2006. 

No, I can't - any more than I can define 'modern'! Leica did not suddenly say "from now on we will stop designing lenses for film and design them only for digital". They have always taken pride in making older products compatible with new equipment, but as time went on after the launch of the M8 (2006) their user base was increasingly made up of digital Ms, so their lenses would have been increasingly intended for digital cameras. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

No, I can't - any more than I can define 'modern'! Leica did not suddenly say "from now on we will stop designing lenses for film and design them only for digital". They have always taken pride in making older products compatible with new equipment, but as time went on after the launch of the M8 (2006) their user base was increasingly made up of digital Ms, so their lenses would have been increasingly intended for digital cameras. 

We’re being very m-centric here. L-mount and s lenses will never be used on film.

[willeica]

48 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

doubt that even Max Berek designed.lenses single-handed.  

That is correct. Leica was a team effort from the beginning. That is why I don't accept the 'lens author' , Berek, Mandler, Karbe etc concept which is part of the Leica mythology. The internal documents show that Zuhlcke, the foreman in the optical department (and nominally under Berek), regularly sent test data on the Elmar directly to Barnack, who was in charge of the overall Leica project, long after the Elmar had been introduced into the market, not least because Leica was developing new models and the concept of standardisation. Leica always continually tested to ensure that the lens worked with the camera and vice versa. And so it is today nearly 100 years later. As for what 'modern' means I suspect that this is partly marketing speak and partly a 'word to the wise' that if you want to get the most out of a 40+Mp sensor then you should use the lenses with the best optical qualities. However, good photography is not just about image resolution and never was. I'll leave it at that.

William

[jonoslack]

I think Peter Karbe might say that "modern" lenses give great performance when shot wide open ("Why Stop Down") whereas classic lenses usually need to be stopped down a bit to get the best out of them. But any definition ends up as a generalisation with obvious exceptions. 

But hey - all the lenses I've used on the M10-R (including the Noctilux f1.2) have worked really well.

[IkarusJohn]

I don’t think there’s a line in the sand for “modern” or not so modern in Peter Karbe’s video.  The ASPH designation gives some indication, but I doubt the 35 Summilux-M Aspherical would qualify; the APO designation is also misleading as many lenses were apochromatic without that designation (the 50 Noctilux 0.95 and the 50 Summilux-M ASPH being cases in point - both are APO and “modern”, but lack that designation).  Similarly, FLE simply refers to mechanical focus correction used to cure focus shift, and has been around for a while (my Hasselblad CF lens of 30 years ago for my 503cx was FLE); the 50 Summilux ASPH has FLE.

You could try to distinguish lenses designed after the digital M8, but I doubt that is any more consistent.  An alternative would be just to say current lenses - that would distinguish the recently redesigned 35 and 28 Summicron ASPHs from their predecessors - they have been corrected for digital.

The final measure could be whether they were made since Peter Karbe headed the lens design department - that would also exclude the excellent 50 Summilux ASPH, designed under Kölsch.

I think the OP is reading too much into what was a general observation - some M lenses are excellent on the recent sensors, others like the previous 28 Summicron ASPH were problematic.  Those problematic lenses have been revised and re-released as version II.  You can be confident that the current lenses (including the 28 Summaron-M, originally designed in the 1950s) are good to go, as are many of the now historic lenses; but the latter may have challenges, and charms ...

[01af]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb LBJ2:

My question:  What defines modern M lenses?

You got the answer to that question. It won't become any different by repeating the question over and over.

[Jeff S]

17 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Similarly, FLE simply refers to mechanical focus correction used to cure focus shift, and has been around for a while (my Hasselblad CF lens of 30 years ago for my 503cx was FLE); the 50 Summilux ASPH has FLE.

 

Floating elements are designed to improve focus at close distances, as I understand it.

Jeff

[01af]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Jeff S:

Floating elements are designed to improve focus at close distances, as I understand it.

No.

Floating elements are designed to reduce spherical aberrations at close distances.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jdlaing]

4 minutes ago, 01af said:

No.

Floating elements are designed to reduce spherical aberrations at close distances.

Both actually.

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, 01af said:

No.

Floating elements are designed to reduce spherical aberrations at close distances.

I should have written to improve image performance at close distances.  As you have previously explained...

Jeff