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

[ravinj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Modern lenses are the ones where people talk more about them and shoot less. They also allow usage of fancy words, technical mumbo-jumbo and literary references. Nothing to do with pictures, though.

Edited July 25, 2020 by ravinj

[Advertisement]

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

[adan]

On 7/22/2020 at 1:49 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? 

Let's back up and look at the OP's actual question.

1) "Quoting" Leica, he introduced the idea of "modern Leica M lenses," as opposed to some other (presumably, "non-modern") era of Leica M lenses.

2) And also introduced 2010 as some possibly-significant dividing date.

In hashing out what the term "modern" means in this context, is there something significant about the years since 2010, for M lenses? Well....

3) In 2014, Leica moved into the new factory at Leitz Park, back in Wetzlar. One of the touted features of the new factory was that it achieved tighter manufacturing tolerances than the "old' factory in Solms (1986-2014). And thus an older-but-still-current lens design built in both factories might be more consistently on-spec in copies from new-Wetzlar. E.G. 90 and 75 APO-Summicrons, 90 Macro, 50 Summilux ASPH, plain-vanilla 50mm Summicron, etc.

4) Since 2010, Leica has issued revised versions of some lenses (e.g. 28 Summicron/Elmarit ASPH, 35 Summicron ASPH, 35 Summilux ASPH FLE). The obvious change was in moving from clip-on plastic lens hoods to screw-on metal hoods, but it has been suggested that the 28s in particular had the optics tweaked slightly for better corner performance when shooting through the refracting cover glass of a digital sensor.

I ignore the Summarit F/2.4s as being a) not an actual optical change from the 2000s f/2.5s, and b ) no longer made.

5) Since 2010, Leica has introduced a handful of entirely new lens designs: 21mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar, 28 f/1.4, 50 APO-Summicron, 75 f/1.25, 90 f/1.5. (And of course, also the retro-revival 90 Thambar (for which the concept of "sharper" is an oxymoron ) and 28 Summaron-M.) The 21, 50 and 75 do seem to have noteworthy performance (I haven't seen enough examples from the 90 f/1.5 to comment).

For the record, I don't personally use any lenses that are "modern" in that context. Although my 75 APO-Summicron comes close - Solms-built in 2011.

However, I'm certain that their "less-modern" sharpness would benefit from being shot on 40.89 Mpixels. If that is a particular benefit I have a need for (a different question).

[LBJ2]

1 hour ago, adan said:

Let's back up and look at the OP's actual question.

1) "Quoting" Leica, he introduced the idea of "modern Leica M lenses," as opposed to some other (presumably, "non-modern") era of Leica M lenses.

2) And also introduced 2010 as some possibly-significant dividing date.

In hashing out what the term "modern" means in this context, is there something significant about the years since 2010, for M lenses? Well....

3) In 2014, Leica moved into the new factory at Leitz Park, back in Wetzlar. One of the touted features of the new factory was that it achieved tighter manufacturing tolerances than the "old' factory in Solms (1986-2014). And thus an older-but-still-current lens design built in both factories might be more consistently on-spec in copies from new-Wetzlar. E.G. 90 and 75 APO-Summicrons, 90 Macro, 50 Summilux ASPH, plain-vanilla 50mm Summicron, etc.

4) Since 2010, Leica has issued revised versions of some lenses (e.g. 28 Summicron/Elmarit ASPH, 35 Summicron ASPH, 35 Summilux ASPH FLE). The obvious change was in moving from clip-on plastic lens hoods to screw-on metal hoods, but it has been suggested that the 28s in particular had the optics tweaked slightly for better corner performance when shooting through the refracting cover glass of a digital sensor.

I ignore the Summarit F/2.4s as being a) not an actual optical change from the 2000s f/2.5s, and b ) no longer made.

5) Since 2010, Leica has introduced a handful of entirely new lens designs: 21mm f/3.4 Super-Elmar, 28 f/1.4, 50 APO-Summicron, 75 f/1.25, 90 f/1.5. (And of course, also the retro-revival 90 Thambar (for which the concept of "sharper" is an oxymoron ) and 28 Summaron-M.) The 21, 50 and 75 do seem to have noteworthy performance (I haven't seen enough examples from the 90 f/1.5 to comment).

For the record, I don't personally use any lenses that are "modern" in that context. Although my 75 APO-Summicron comes close - Solms-built in 2011.

However, I'm certain that their "less-modern" sharpness would benefit from being shot on 40.89 Mpixels. If that is a particular benefit I have a need for (a different question).

Very nice summary. Thank you. 

For anyone that might be interested, from most recent experience when I went from Sony 42 MP to 61MP, I definitely saw improvements in some less sharp Sony lenses on the 61 MP sensor. My 5K iMac leaves no pixel unseen! I think most agree the potential is there to see even improvements depending upon the lens. Of course most it not all of our lenses will continue to perform on the higher MP sensors. I've seen a few excellent examples of very old lenses, even long forgotten brands eating all these MPs for lunch. 

Thank you again for scrutinizing the 2010 date. I read and research an awful lot of data thanks to the internet, sometimes things stick in my mind but I forget where I read it. Since starting this thread, others have sent me some very interesting reference material I've yet to go through and there are other milestone dates to consider too with regards to Modern Lens design. But those dates are  for another day once I get my head around all the data still incoming.

As I summarized previously in this thread, there appear to be multiple legitimate definitions of Modern Leica Lenses and they do include milestone dates as well as you describe. Apparently context is key to understanding the reference to Modern Leica Lenses as its used many times all over the internet. 

Again thanks for a very interesting contribution to this thread.

Edited July 25, 2020 by LBJ2

[Jeff S]

Remember, too, that Karbe didn’t become chief optical designer until 2002, and that it can take many years to bring a new lens design to market.  Not surprising that some of his achievements were realized in the 2008-9 period (50 Noctilux .95, etc). 
 

I’ve posted this before, but it’s a good example (50 M Summilux ASPH) that Karbe uses to describe how difficult, and how long, that journey can be.  And he discusses some of the ‘modern’ challenges associated with lens design (this was published in 2009).

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/leica-lens-saga-interview-peter-karbe

Jeff

[pgk]

7 hours ago, lct said:

Acutance is the key word of modern lenses IMHO. 

Sorry, but it's not. Acutance is about the perceived sharpness of edge detail contrast as opposed to resolution itself, and is subjective. A lens does not provide acutance but can provide very high levels of resolution and edge contrast at nearly 100%. Acutance is about elevating edge contrast and is achieved either chemically on film or using software on digital. Lenses which have high levels of aberration correction, especially spherical, provide high edge contrast and resolution but not acutance. As I have said before, there is nothing new about this because app process lenses have achieved high levels of correction for a long time, but under a specified set of quite narrow conditions. The current generation of M lenses achieved high levels of correction throughout a much wider set of conditions (wider open, throughout their focus range, etc.). 

[lct]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

Sorry, but it's not. Acutance is about the perceived sharpness of edge detail contrast as opposed to resolution itself, and is subjective. A lens does not provide acutance but can provide very high levels of resolution and edge contrast at nearly 100%. Acutance is about elevating edge contrast and is achieved either chemically on film or using software on digital. Lenses which have high levels of aberration correction, especially spherical, provide high edge contrast and resolution but not acutance. As I have said before, there is nothing new about this because app process lenses have achieved high levels of correction for a long time, but under a specified set of quite narrow conditions. The current generation of M lenses achieved high levels of correction throughout a much wider set of conditions (wider open, throughout their focus range, etc.). 

I beg to differ. All my asph lenses have more acutance than my pre-asph ones of the same focal length at wide aperture at least. I mean Leica ones of course. YMMV.

[fotografr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've just spent the last half hour reading through this entire thread and it occurred to me that perhaps the OP should have asked a different question. Rather than asking what constitutes modern Leica glass, he could have gotten right to the point and asked what Leica lenses will produce the best results with the M10-R. Then we could have had a five page discussion about the meaning of "best."

 

[adan]

4 hours ago, pgk said:

A lens does not provide acutance but can provide very high levels of resolution and edge contrast at nearly 100%. Acutance is about elevating edge contrast and is achieved either chemically on film or using software on digital.

I'm afraid I have to disagree here, in part. It is certainly possible to enhance acutance with development, or digital "sharpening." But acutance can also be a property of a lens's inherent point spread function (PSF).

When the Hubble Space Telescope was shown to have a serious problem with acutance, NASA did not resort to stand-developing or sharpening its images. They sent some folks up into orbit to fix the d*mn lens.

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

One of Dr. Mandler's achievements, in writing some of the first computer lens-design software, was coming up with routines for optimizing the PSF in the computed lens simulations. Although I'm sure he made use of Zernike and Nijboer's work on circle polynomials and other previous work (Airy et al).

So-called bright-ring bokeh is an example of optical, not chemical or computational, enhancement of the acutance of a "circle of confusion" that makes it look sharper (not always a desirable effect, but a purely-optical effect nonetheless).

Here's an example of bright-ring bokeh enhancing the acutance ("perceived sharpness") of the brim of this out-of-focus pith-helmet, as well as putting sharper edges on other blurs in the background. (M4-2, 35 Summicron v.4 at f/2.0). See also (from previous link): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_spread_function#/media/File:Spherical-aberration-disk.jpg

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!

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, fotografr said:

I've just spent the last half hour reading through this entire thread and it occurred to me that perhaps the OP should have asked a different question. Rather than asking what constitutes modern Leica glass, he could have gotten right to the point and asked what Leica lenses will produce the best results with the M10-R. Then we could have had a five page discussion about the meaning of "best."

I thought something similar yesterday but there are some things are just too sticky to wade into. But what the heck, we're here now... For me the whole point of the M system is the range of optics and looks available. Here's an example from the funkiest lens I own by far, shot specifically a few minutes ago to mitigate some of the worry around what truly elderly optics might look like. The shot below was made with a 1956 50mm Summarit 1.5  wide open where its at it absolute worst, ISO 1600, 1/45" from around a meter.  Focus on the eye. Karbe sharp? 😂  Ah... no, but a worthwhile optic on the 10R?  IMO, I think it has the potential to rock the house for tight portraits.  

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!

There may be some exceptions, but so far, from what I've seen if you have a lens you like the look of on your current M, it will look as good or better on the 10R. So I would concern myself more with the what style of optic I was interested in shooting with as opposed to worrying about whether it is modern enough to work on the R.

[pgk]

9 hours ago, adan said:

I'm afraid I have to disagree here, in part. It is certainly possible to enhance acutance with development, or digital "sharpening." But acutance can also be a property of a lens's inherent point spread function (PSF).

In part perhaps but I would be extremely surprised if this applies in a significantly enough way to be valid in 'normal' photography. Its a useful theory which can be applied under certain conditions but I very much doubt that it can be utilised in considering a lens' performance in such varied conditions as 'normal' photography operates - way to much variability in subject contrast and interaction.

[pgk]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

In part perhaps but I would be extremely surprised if this applies in a significantly enough way to be valid in 'normal' photography. Its a useful theory which can be applied under certain conditions but I very much doubt that it can be utilised in considering a lens' performance in such varied conditions as 'normal' photography operates - way to much variability in subject contrast and interaction. 

(I've yet to see an MTF chart with 100+% at any spatial frequency😉).

Edited July 26, 2020 by pgk

[250swb]

Isn't the reference to 2010 as the start of the 'modern era' far simpler than the explanations? The full frame M9 was introduced in 2009, and the tolerances in lens production got tighter to compensate for the digital sensor. And people started sending lenses back for re-calibration that were perfectly good for film but not necessarily as good digital. It wasn't and isn't fundamental problem, yet it couldn't be ignored on the production side. I haven't had any lenses recalibrated because I'm happy enough with my pre-2010 lenses, but if I were to ask Leica they would say that 'they may need recalibrating', but not the post-2010 ones (faults in new lenses aside).

Edited July 26, 2020 by 250swb

[adan]

5 hours ago, 250swb said:

The full frame M9 was introduced in 2009, and the tolerances in lens production got tighter to compensate for the digital sensor.

The M8 didn't count?

Personally, I think 2010 is just a convenient round number; shorthand for an approximate point in a continuum of constant improvement on a number of fronts.

[250swb]

5 hours ago, adan said:

The M8 didn't count?

Personally, I think 2010 is just a convenient round number; shorthand for an approximate point in a continuum of constant improvement on a number of fronts.

Did the M8 count? Hmm, did the M8 have a 'crop sensor', maybe that's the question? So what happens with a full frame lens on a crop sensor, DOF maybe? I'd say M8 users had nothing to complain about. So back to 2010......

 

Edited July 26, 2020 by 250swb

[lct]

Nothing happened in 2010. Modern lenses were there since the nineties: 35/1.4 asph, 24/2.8 asph, 35/2 asph, etc. 

[ravinj]

And modern cars have been available since 1920s...

 

 

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 modern times started long ago

Edited July 26, 2020 by ravinj

[Jeff S]

Apparently Erwin Puts still pays some attention to the latest Leica news.  Here he comments briefly on the basis for a modern Leica lens.

https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/7ffd1cf05f545c1ec24b21ef9b653ca8-165.html

Jeff

[01af]

The whole topic—Which lenses are suitable for the M10-R?–is totally pointless to begin with. Any M lens suits the M10-R. And via adapters, many more.

Edited July 27, 2020 by 01af

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[willeica]

5 minutes ago, 01af said:

The whole topic—Which lenses are suitable for the M10-R?–is totally pointless to begin with. Any M lens is suits the M10-R. And via adapters, many more.

I said the same thing a good few posts back and even provided an extensive list for readers. I am just coming back to this as I thought that this had died long ago, but it seems that some people won't be happy until they have examined every last pixel to see if it is 'pure perfection'. Digital photography has encouraged a lot of this kind of nonsense. It has gone through several phases over the years. About 8 or 9 years ago chromatic aberration was the 'dish of the day', but it seems to have faded in popularity. Now 40+ MP seems to beckon as a favourite trouble subject. The main issues with larger size images are on whatever you use to process them with, but these can be dealt with by upgrading your equipment. That will keep the same people talking until something else emerges. The only cure is to go out and take some pictures.

As for the Puts piece, I won't be asking which of my many Leica /Leitz lenses were designed with the aid of a computer. He is just adding to the 'mythology' with this type of thing. I nearly said 'fake news' but I stopped myself in time!

William

 

[LBJ2]

3 hours ago, 01af said:

The whole topic—Which lenses are suitable for the M10-R?–is totally pointless to begin with. Any M lens suits the M10-R. And via adapters, many more.

There are those that just take pictures with a suitable camera and those that also select the right tool for the job, camera and/or lens. Nothing pointless about either approach.