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

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If we are going to be pedantic, I can out-pedant anyone.

Using "glass" to mean "lens" is a legitimate use of pars pro toto, a recognized subset of synedoche, one of the four "master tropes" (or figures of speech) in rhetoric.

Quote

Part referring to whole (pars pro toto)

• Referring to a person according to a single characteristic: "gray beard" meaning an old man
• Referring to a sword as a 'blade'
• Describing a complete vehicle as "wheels," or, referring to a manual transmission vehicle as a "stick"
• Referring to people by a particular body part; for example, "head count" or "counting noses" or "all hands on deck"
• Using "tickling the ivories" to mean playing the piano (since piano keys were historically made of ivory)
• Describing a meal as a "bite to eat"

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

Although I would submit that "glass" is the unique feature of a lens - Voigtlander, for example, regularly sells the same "glass" in multiple mounts and barrels (90 APO-Lanthar in LTM, and also Nikon/Canon/Pentax SLR mounts; 21mm Color-Skopar in Leica-M and Sony-E mounts) but they produce indistiguishable images (which, after all, is the only purpose for their existence) in any mount. Glass without a barrel is a lens looking for a home - a barrel without the glass is a leaky cup.

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/21-mm-135-color-skopar-aspherical/?lang=en

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/e-mount/21-mm-135-color-skopar-aspherical/?lang=en

[LBJ2]

17 hours ago, 01af said:

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

Just trying to keep my thread on track to the original question. But I do appreciate your whack-a-mole approach as seen by many your your responses. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, willeica said:

In terms of vintage Leica lenses read the works of Lager, Laney, van Hasbroeck and others and you will not find the term ‘old glass’ used therein.

Don't worry, I read these books long ago. These are references for the Leica collector but hardly references for someone interested in the history of lenses. Kingslake might be a better reference. In the Abbe diagram, the range of older crown and flint glasses with low refractive index (for given Abbe number or dispersion) is indeed known as the "old glass" line. 

[IkarusJohn]

I guess part of the issue is that Leica doesn’t release lenses in waves across the entire M system - M lenses are revised relatively randomly.  The 28 Summaron-M and Thanbar lenses were released as new M mount lenses to their original formula, but that was it; the 28 & 35 Summicron ASPH lenses got a new formula, but few others; some like the 50 Summicron-M haven’t been updated in decades.

There may be a system, but it isn’t immediately apparent, and Leica certainly hasn’t reissued new “versions” of its lenses in waves across the entire system.  It seems to just revise or introduce a new lens in a focal length on need, then move on.

Edited July 24, 2020 by IkarusJohn

[Gelatino]

2 hours ago, adan said:

If we are going to be pedantic, I can out-pedant anyone.

 

adan, you are a fount of knowledge, your science is infinite🥇

Edited July 24, 2020 by Gelatino

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Joachim_I said:

Don't worry, I read these books long ago. These are references for the Leica collector but hardly references for someone interested in the history of lenses. Kingslake might be a better reference. In the Abbe diagram, the range of older crown and flint glasses with low refractive index (for given Abbe number or dispersion) is indeed known as the "old glass" line. 

I have Kingslake (even on my iPhone) and I know Lager, correspond with him regularly and have met him on 3 or 4 occasions. I have also met van Hasbroeck. Dennis Laney passed away about 10 years ago, around the time that I came back from the Middle East. My oldest lenses go back to the mid 1850s. I have used some of them, as has my friend Paul (pgk), and they are not just part of a collection. Yes the glass in them is old, but I still refer to them as lenses as that is what they were intended to be.

4 hours ago, adan said:

Don't worry, I read these books long ago. These are references for the Leica collector but hardly references for someone interested in the history of lenses. Kingslake might be a better reference. In the Abbe diagram, the range of older crown and flint glasses with low refractive index (for given Abbe number or dispersion) is indeed known as the "old glass" line. 

Andy, I won't rise to this except to say that the piece of glass in this case is, of course, intended to function as a lens. On sunny days the glass in my windows functions in a lens-like fashion and makes images on my wall, but I won't use that glass to take photographs.

William

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd like to thank many in this thread that took the time to consider my original question and provide a response. Since creating this thread, I've also had the opportunity to reach out to some well-known, heavy hitters on the internet and all were kind enough take the time to respond in detail as well. I've learned a lot along the way, which was my intention. 

In summary, there doesn't seem or appear to be a lot of specific agreement on the definition of my thread question, some responses due however overlap, and I was provided with very interesting details of what others have published on the topic of what constitutes the term modern lens design that I need to follow up on. It appears I am not the first to ask this question. 

What is clear via a few days of Googling, this term is used quite often in meaningful ways to described Leica lens design. I'm just not sure everyone's definition, or point of reference is the same. 

Thank you again for your thought provoking responses in this thread.  If I ever get the chance to ask the same of the Leica leaders who inspired my brief quest, I will update for anyone who might be in the slightest interested in the same. Cheers!

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, adan said:

If we are going to be pedantic, I can out-pedant anyone.

Using "glass" to mean "lens" is a legitimate use of pars pro toto, a recognized subset of synedoche, one of the four "master tropes" (or figures of speech) in rhetoric.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

Although I would submit that "glass" is the unique feature of a lens - Voigtlander, for example, regularly sells the same "glass" in multiple mounts and barrels (90 APO-Lanthar in LTM, and also Nikon/Canon/Pentax SLR mounts; 21mm Color-Skopar in Leica-M and Sony-E mounts) but they produce indistiguishable images (which, after all, is the only purpose for their existence) in any mount. Glass without a barrel is a lens looking for a home - a barrel without the glass is a leaky cup.

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/vm/21-mm-135-color-skopar-aspherical/?lang=en

https://www.voigtlaender.de/lenses/e-mount/21-mm-135-color-skopar-aspherical/?lang=en

One of my favourite writers, James Thurber, discussed this question of metonyms in 'Here lies Mrs Groby' (though not in the context of Leica or lenses). He mentioned the common metonym "the container for the thing contained" as in the example: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears". He also cited the converse "the thing contained for the container" and gave an example "my wife hit me with the milk" (from a time when milk came in bottles). Using 'glass' to refer to a lens would be another example.

I am grateful to James Thurber for helping me appear far more erudite than I actually am. He would have enjoyed this discussion, but those who like their threads kept on track should be glad he is no longer around.🙂

Edited July 24, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Dr No]

On 7/22/2020 at 8:49 PM, 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? 

The expensive ones.

[pgk]

7 hours ago, Joachim_I said:

Don't worry, I read these books long ago. These are references for the Leica collector but hardly references for someone interested in the history of lenses. Kingslake might be a better reference. In the Abbe diagram, the range of older crown and flint glasses with low refractive index (for given Abbe number or dispersion) is indeed known as the "old glass" line. 

Kingslake didn't have the benefit of being able to search using modern digital search systems and his excellent book does have its problems as a result. The 'old glass' description is a perfect example of the problem of slang. It does indeed refer to the range of older crown and fling glasses but the precise technical information on early glass, whilst inferred from the slang term covering them is difficult to actually tie down. 

But we might actually have to change even the song term of 'glass' for lenses: https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef321.html as Plastic is now starting to be used too!

[o2mpx]

Somewhat late but related to this thread, from the Red Dot Forum Camera Talk episode on Wide Angle M Lenses, in the Comments section, question was posed when did manufacturing begin on digital era lenses. 
 

Answer, believe it was from Josh, was “modern” era lenses started in the late 1990’s, with the ASPH lenses, like the 35mm and 90mm APO Summicrons. 

[willeica]

 

18 minutes ago, o2mpx said:

 

Answer, believe it was from Josh, was “modern” era lenses started in the late 1990’s, with the ASPH lenses, like the 35mm and 90mm APO Summicrons. 

Before you start defining 'modern' in this context, you need to define something that you are specifically looking for that is not present in 'non modern' lenses. The need for doing this at all escapes me. 

This one is for Andy Piper (Adan). Academics love to talk about this form of 'modernism'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

I suppose we are all modern now, or at least we think we are. Where and when did modernism impact on photography? Man Ray? Cartier Bresson?, Edward Weston? , Paul Strand? Bill Brandt? 

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/photography/a-z

Leica makes the Tate Modernist List

L IS FOR LEICA

Released in 1925, the Leica camera was one of the ground-breaking technical innovations that expanded the development of photography during this period, revolutionising street photography in particular. It used flexible 35mm film – adapted from cinema film – stored on a roll. With a range of film speeds, it could capture movement and adapt to different lighting conditions, making it the ultimate handheld camera. Cheap, lightweight, and portable, the camera provided the opportunity for people to freely document their own lives. Not only did this see an increase in the popularity of snapshot photography, but also the rise of the amateur photographer.

 

So It seems that Leicas were 'modern(ist)' from the beginning, but my favourite is this one about Paul Strand

F IS FOR FALSE CAMERAS

Mounting a false brass lens to the side of his camera, American photographer Paul Strand would photograph his subjects using a second working lens hidden under his arm. Known as the candid camera technique, this allowed him to capture people without their knowledge. As the photographer describes, he wanted to make ‘portraits of people the way you see them in New York parks – sitting around, not posing, not conscious of being photographed’. 

From Jewish patriarchs to Irish washerwomen, Strand’s street photography offered a drastic alternative to posed and formal studio portraits. 

 

 

There is an idea for Peter Karbe to work on for his next lens design - a modernist candid camera lens.

William

 

 

 

 

[adan]

6 minutes ago, willeica said:

This one is for Andy Piper (Adan). Academics love to talk about this form of 'modernism'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

Quite right. Which is why I tend to use "contemporary" when referring to recent art. (How recent? - ahhhh....that's the rub!).

As do some museums now  - the Museum of Modern (ahem!) Art in NYC dates to 1929!

https://mcadenver.org/

https://mcachicago.org/About/Mission

"Postmodern" is a bit dated now (as well as, technically, an oxymoron) - a historical movement in its own right, that has been somewhat supplanted by even newer movements and ideas. And even "contemporary" has a bit of a taint, since "the 'contemporary' style" sometimes means 1950s-modern.

Recent, contemporary, modern, most modern, most up-to-date, post-millennial, trending - take your pick.

I'd say the most recent Leica trend (for Ms) has been "Summiluxes/Noctiluxes Galore!" Since 2008 - 21, 24, 28, 35 FLE, 50 0.95, 75 1.25, 90 1.5. With a smidgen of APO (50 f/2), digital revisions, and classic revivals.

[lct]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

Before you start defining 'modern' in this context, you need to define something that you are specifically looking for that is not present in 'non modern' lenses.

Acutance.

[m410]

On 7/22/2020 at 12:49 PM, 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? 

This issue very much caught my attention as well.

This is about what the M10-R design considers a "modern lens".

For future Leica M10-R owners this is an important question.  In my mind, a VERY important question as it could effect the usefulness of ones collection of lenses.  A modern lens is not defined simply as APO, ASPH, FLE, the calendar or any other labeling for the purpose of answering this question.  There are examples where this may not be necessarily true.  ONLY Leica can specifically answer the question being asked here as Leica certainly used a lens specification criteria in researching and developing the M10-R .  They designed camera specifications and performance with certain lenses considered to make a statement referring to the need/benefit of "modern lenses".

Leica should publish THEIR list of "modern lenses" which were included in the design criteria and engineering of the M10-R. Then we will all know which lenses can be classified as a "modern lenses".  Future buyers of this high performing camera need to know.  jDD

Edited July 25, 2020 by m410

[scott kirkpatrick]

Leica speaks to the world now through the filter of their marketing concerns, so it is best to get this kind of critique from the outside.  And from more than one source.

The Erwin Puts series of compendia, sagas, etc, was the sole respected source of Leica godliness for twenty years or so, but he has retired from that role.  His books are the best source to use to identify the older lenses with unique and appreciated rendering characteristics.  And Thorsten Overgaard's site has a Leica history compendium with additional useful information about when and where various classic lenses were created. Peter Karbe now speaks for Leica's lens community, and can be found saying interesting things on YouTube since about 2010.  He has a taste for complete control of aberrations and edge-to-edge sharpness, but that is not the only style in which Leica lenses have come to market in the past decade.  And he cheerfully admits that he only gets his hands on a small part of the design job today, if any. 

I'd be curious to know how many hands it takes today to master the issues in optical glass selection, computerized optical design, mechanics, internal autofocus and OIS, manufacturing tolerances, and the optical interface at the imaging chip's surface.  Just as in cinema, an "auteur" probably gets undeserved credit for the stored up talents and skills of several generations of tradecraft which they can draw upon to support their direction.

On lenses released since about 2015, you have to read their technical data sheets, make an estimate of how they will draw, go look for pictures, download DNGs and decide.  Or borrow and try them yourself. The web can help but jpegs at 1200 pixels width are not evidence.  There are differences to look for.  Classic lenses designed for 24 MPx down to film rendering will look just as good (or bad) on sensors with 40 or more MPx, but they will not lose contrast or resolution.

Edited July 25, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[willeica]

6 hours ago, adan said:

I'd say the most recent Leica trend (for Ms) has been "Summiluxes/Noctiluxes Galore!" Since 2008 - 21, 24, 28, 35 FLE, 50 0.95, 75 1.25, 90 1.5. With a smidgen of APO (50 f/2), digital revisions, and classic revivals.

But the Tate Gallery list says that Leicas have been ‘modernist’ since 1925 and who are we to contradict such an august institution?

5 hours ago, lct said:

Acutance.

I think you will find plenty of this in and from all Leica lenses and indeed in other lenses such as the Zeiss Tessar which was the ‘Daddy’ of the Elmar, the lens which ‘made’ Leica.

 

54 minutes ago, m410 said:

Leica should publish THEIR list of "modern lenses" which were included in the design criteria and engineering of the M10-R. Then we will all know which lenses can be classified as a "modern lenses".  Future buyers of this high performing camera need to know

Now we are getting onto a ‘slippery slope’ . This is getting into the area of bar room boasts and bores eg ‘all my lenses are on the list of modern lenses’. One of the reasons why people like the M system is that it provides a link back to Leica’s great heritage. This is putting that heritage aside for a ‘latest and greatest’ mode of thinking.

William 

[pgk]

2 hours ago, willeica said:

But the Tate Gallery list says that Leicas have been ‘modernist’ since 1925 and who are we to contradict such an august institution?

But their comments also say that the Leica was 'cheap' which I don't think was or is appropriate by any stretch of the imagination😉.

There seems to be a sub-plot to this whole discussion about lenses being specifically intended to resolve images for the M10. This is a false consideration IMO. The word 'acutance' was also mentioned as a differentiator. In reality the need for precise and extremely detailed photographic images which require 'process lens-like' 'quality' over the whole sensor is well over-rated. Lenses are now getting into the esoteric realms of what is possible in terms of design and production. If precision, detail and acutance are pre-requisites of lenses for the M10, should new lenses not feature f/16 I wonder?

[willeica]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

But their comments also say that the Leica was 'cheap' which I don't think was or is appropriate by any stretch of the imagination😉.

There seems to be a sub-plot to this whole discussion about lenses being specifically intended to resolve images for the M10. This is a false consideration IMO. The word 'acutance' was also mentioned as a differentiator. In reality the need for precise and extremely detailed photographic images which require 'process lens-like' 'quality' over the whole sensor is well over-rated. Lenses are now getting into the esoteric realms of what is possible in terms of design and production. If precision, detail and acutance are pre-requisites of lenses for the M10, should new lenses not feature f/16 I wonder?

I am only using the Tate example in a jocose fashion to show how nonsensical the discussion about 'modern' lenses is. The Tate is not a source I would turn to for information on Leicas. 

I am with you on the issue of image quality or 'acutance', if you wish, being well past the point of 'good enough'. What we have already today is well capable of fulfilling all of our photographic needs either in print or on a screen (where most of our 'image consumption' happens these days). The only area where there might be an actual need for producing further detail is in respect of scientific research. Most of the discussion here has little to do with improving the standards of photography, but rather is about 'mine is bigger/better' than yours.

Finally, as regards a 'list' I suggested one many posts ago. I also point once again to Jono's comments about a Noctilux 50 f1.2 that would be 45+ years old. 

William

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by willeica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

The Noctilux 50/1.2 has not the same acutance as the 50/0.95. Same for 50/2 apo compared to non apo, 50/1.4 asph compared to 50/1.4 v1 to v3, 35/2 asph compared to 35/2 v1 to v4, 75/2 apo compared to 75/1.4, 90/2 apo compared to non apo, etc, etc. Acutance is the key word of modern lenses IMHO.