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

[willeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Rick in CO said:

 Erwin Puts proposes that Leica lenses since 1975, designed along optimal MTF performance, should be considered "modern".

There is much ado about different Leica lenses having a certain "character" or being too "clinical", which is the result of the evolution of lens design as Erwin Puts described.

Lenses from these various design eras undoubtedly will have similar character on 24, 41, 62 Mp (or, whatever) sensors.

Herr Karbe was pointing out that the new SL lenses have been designed to take advantage of the higher resolution sensor of the SL2.  

However, his message was clear:  if you want the highest (MTF) performance, buy a new lens (or camera system)!

 

This is my concern. If you like being manipulated into buying what you don’t need, go ahead. I take photos not MTF charts.

William 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, pgk said:

I just wonder if by this he is referring to the possibilities opened up by the use of software in optimising an electronically integrated lens's performance. Heresy to suggest such a thing in an M section of the forum, but this is one area in which 'modern' lenses will continue to move forward I have no doubt. For those us using archaic M lenses, well, we will just have to live with the pure optical excellence which derives from whenever it was that our lenses were made (on however many MPixels we use).

Not just software.  SL lenses can be, and are, bigger than M lenses, and therefore Mr. Karbe has more design freedom to optimize technical performance.  And as he notes, the SL 35 is the best of the bunch since there’s more free space afforded by what otherwise could have been the smallest current SL Summicron.

Jeff

[LBJ2]

7 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Not just software.  SL lenses can be, and are, bigger than M lenses, and therefore Mr. Karbe has more design freedom to optimize technical performance.  And as he notes, the SL 35 is the best of the bunch since there’s more free space afforded by what otherwise could have been the smallest current SL Summicron.

Jeff

Yes. Exactly. I like what you wrote here. Peter Karbe presented us with a very good explanation, with pictures 😎 and that INCREDIBLE SL 35/2 MTF which is WOW x 3.

[willeica]

32 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Yes. Exactly. I like what you wrote here. Peter Karbe presented us with a very good explanation, with pictures 😎 and that INCREDIBLE SL 35/2 MTF which is WOW x 3.

My photo of those MTF charts appeared on Leica Rumours as did my photo of that lens which was on somebody’s shoulder at a reception afterwards. All without my permission I might add. I had used them in  an article about the LHSA visit to Wetzlar in 2018. The ironic thing is that I have not got the slightest interest in that lens or the L system generally. I had just used the photos to illustrate my description of Peter Karbe’s talk. Peter himself is a very nice guy, totally dedicated to his work and a real asset to Leica AG, but I don’t take MTF charts, I take photos and I am very happy with what my existing Leica lenses and cameras can do.

William 

[LBJ2]

For those that don't mind a little math sprinkled on their breakfast toast 😎 and why it can be important to match the lens to the sensor aka "balance" for maximum MTF performance. *Knowledge of none of which is required to take excellent images. As Peter Karbe says in this video "nobody cares about MTF"

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!

[willeica]

Just now, LBJ2 said:

For those that don't mind a little math sprinkled on their breakfast toast 😎 and why it can be important to match the lens to the sensor aka "balance" for maximum MTF performance. *Knowledge of none of which is required to take excellent images. As Peter Karbe says in this video "nobody cares about MTF"

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!

He is right about knowledge of MTF not being required to take excellent images. They are only important to him as a lens designer. 

William

[01af]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 15 Minuten schrieb LBJ2:

For those that don't mind a little math sprinkled on their breakfast toast ...

Oh dear! Please don't sprinkle math on everybody's breakfast toast. Because even those who can read a mathematical formula usually won't understand when or when not to apply it.

.

vor 15 Minuten schrieb LBJ2:

... and why it can be important to match the lens to the sensor aka "balance" for maximum MTF performance.

Yeah. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Can you explain it?

[LBJ2]

Off topic again..a little wild and crazy I know 🤠 For those that might be interested, here IMO is a good side by side comparison between 24MPs and 40.89 MPs using the Cron 35/2 Asph @ F8. F8 as we learned from Peter Karbe's video is pretty much the lens resolution equalizer. Side by sides even through Youtube compression at about 11:20 of this video. 

 

[LBJ2]

3 hours ago, mmx_2 said:

Also on a side note, that lens is not made by Leica, it was designed and manufactured by Schneider Kreuznach and is available in many mounts :).

 

Now you got me googling to know more about Schneider Kreuznach! I think I remember Oz Yilmaz talked about a favorite Schneider Kreuznach optic in one of his Leica Reviews videos. Been a while since I watched that video, so I might be mistaken. 

[Printmaker]

On 7/23/2020 at 3:19 AM, pgk said:

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.

An off topic bit of trivia... Back in the day when color reproduction was accomplished with enlargers and process cameras, working with "APO" lenses was critical. Four films were generated through an analog process from a transparency or flat art which were then burned onto printing plates. Each "separated color" represented in those films needed to exactly align with the others if the original was to be sharply reproduced. This could only be accomplished with APO lenses. Laser scanners introduced in the 1980s replaced this technology and the digital revolution soon rendered laser scanners obsolete. 

Back on topic... I happily work with a mix of modern and classic Leica glass. My current favorite lens is the 75 APO Summicron M on both my M10 and SL; though I probably shoot more photos with a 35 Summicron M type IV, which is a wonderful classic lens from the mid 90s. Despite their differences they seem to play well together. 

BTW Paul, nice photos on your website, You are a brave man diving off the coast of Ireland. Or you have a very good dry suit.

https://tomniblick.photoshelter.com/index

[IkarusJohn]

Balanced?  So, if it isn’t “balanced” something is not quite right?

I sense that a fundamental issue is out of balance in this whole thread. To my mind, there are three types of Leica lens for use with an M camera - (1) Leica thread mount (LTM) with adapter; (2) Leica M mount, designed for film cameras (from 1953 up to, say, 2009?); (3) M mount designed in the digital era. 

All work on film M cameras. Brilliantly. 

All work on digital M cameras. Magnificently.

Leica, as I understand it, does NOT measure lpmm for its MTF charts. They are computer generated, so they are theoretical. What we do know is that Leica has always tried to make the best optical lenses for the M system that technology allows. This means we have over 60 years of excellent lenses to chose from. 

More critically, this idea that for some reason you need a new lens for the new 40MP sensor is nonsense. My 1948 50 Summitar LTM f/2 lens performs way “better” on my TL2 (similar pixel density to the M10-R?) than it does on film. Similarly, each increase in resolution and dynamic range “improves” each of my lenses, whatever their provenance. 

Improve the lens or improve the sensor, both benefit. You can be sure that if you buy the latest lenses (75 Noctilux, 90 Summilux, APO 50 Summicron and 28 Summilux) to go with your new M10-R, you won’t have missed a single pixel. 

More “balanced”?   Hmmm ...

[scott kirkpatrick]

On 7/27/2020 at 5:41 PM, ravinj said:

Not sure if this was already mentioned in one of the responses here, but could be an interesting read for you:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/45658127/their-soul-and-secrets-leica-camera-ag

It doesn't cover more recent lenses, but gives a lot of design history that may be of interest.

That's an early Puts compendium, probably excerpted from his (out of print) Leica Lens Compendium of 2001..  He kept improving the compendium format, listing newer lenses until sometime around 2010, when he published the Leica Compendium.  A second edition of that long work added discussion of the M 21/3.4. His most recent book, the Leica Lens Saga (2016), adds some newer information, but only on M 50mm lenses. There are pdf versions of much of this material available.  He covers M and R lenses in depth, but says nothing about S or SL/CL lenses.  The S lenses were mostly designed while he was still close to the Leica company, but the L mount lenses are more recent.

How Leica lenses got designed in the last 30 years is somewhat shrouded in mystery, partly because Leica is so conscious of its image, and perhaps because the company's fortunes have varied quite dramatically over that period.  Lothar Koelsch came from Zeiss to Leica in 1986 and founded first an optical design department, then a mechanical design department, then took over responsibility for all camera products and finally R&D.  until his retirement in 2002.  Peter Karbe was named head of optical design in 2002, but must have had almost that responsibility in earlier years, since Koelsch took on broader responsibilities (in a role like that of Stefan Daniel today) from 1995 onwards.  Anyway Karbe currently tells the Leica Lens Story.  He likes to talk about the latest creations, but someone should ask him for a little more history.

 

[mmx_2]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

Now you got me googling to know more about Schneider Kreuznach! I think I remember Oz Yilmaz talked about a favorite Schneider Kreuznach optic in one of his Leica Reviews videos. Been a while since I watched that video, so I might be mistaken. 

Schneider made (makes!) some really nice lenses! I'd rate them about the same optical level as Leica, some of them are truly amazing! Today they mainly make lenses for MF and industrial applications. I think almost all of their lenses for FF are out of production. Phase One is using Schneider lenses for instance. The TS-APO-ELMAR-S for Leica S is also made by Schneider.

Edited July 28, 2020 by mmx_2

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Balanced?  So, if it isn’t “balanced” something is not quite right?

I sense that a fundamental issue is out of balance in this whole thread. To my mind, there are three types of Leica lens for use with an M camera - (1) Leica thread mount (LTM) with adapter; (2) Leica M mount, designed for film cameras (from 1953 up to, say, 2009?); (3) M mount designed in the digital era. 

All work on film M cameras. Brilliantly. 

All work on digital M cameras. Magnificently.

Leica, as I understand it, does NOT measure lpmm for its MTF charts. They are computer generated, so they are theoretical. What we do know is that Leica has always tried to make the best optical lenses for the M system that technology allows. This means we have over 60 years of excellent lenses to chose from. 

More critically, this idea that for some reason you need a new lens for the new 40MP sensor is nonsense. My 1948 50 Summitar LTM f/2 lens performs way “better” on my TL2 (similar pixel density to the M10-R?) than it does on film. Similarly, each increase in resolution and dynamic range “improves” each of my lenses, whatever their provenance. 

Improve the lens or improve the sensor, both benefit. You can be sure that if you buy the latest lenses (75 Noctilux, 90 Summilux, APO 50 Summicron and 28 Summilux) to go with your new M10-R, you won’t have missed a single pixel. 

More “balanced”?   Hmmm ...

Yes. Apparently there is a "best" balance between lens performance and sensor resolution. As depicted here for 24, 40, 60 and even 100MP sensors.

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!

[adan]

Bottom line: Leica farmed out their wide-angle designs (and even some other designs) for quite a while. They were a small shop, and preferred to "focus" (hah!) their efforts on focal lengths 28mm and longer.

For Leitz/Leica, Schneider did the 50mm f/1.5 Xenon (later coated and renamed Summarit, predecessor to Summilux), as well as 21 Super-Angulon f/4-f/3.4, 21 Super-Angulon-R f/4, and the 28/35 shift lenses. Schneider has a long history of making wide-coverage lenses for view-camera use (Angulon and Super-Angulon are Schneider trademarks).

(I'd also rate their 80mm f/2.8 Xenotar for the Rollei TLRs as slightly better than the Zeiss Planar from which it was adapted (reversing the inner elements). Which was not a first - the Super-Angulons themselves were adaptions of the Zeiss Biogon formula. Like artists, composers and writers, lens designers often "borrow" shamelessly! )

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

http://antiquecameras.net/blog.html

The Hologon 15mm in M-mount was from Zeiss, as was the 15mm Super-Elmar-R 15mm f/3.5. The 24mm for R was from Minolta, as was the 16mm fisheye.

Leitz/Leica didn't get around to designing their own 21 until the late 1970s (21 Elmarit-M), concurrent with their first design of anything wider than 28mm for the R system (19mm Elmarit v.1)

Edited July 28, 2020 by adan

[IkarusJohn]

7 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

Yes. Apparently there is a "best" balance between lens performance and sensor resolution. As depicted here for 24, 40, 60 and even 100MP sensors.

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!

Looks like marketing, smells like marketing, tastes ... etc etc

Where does this get you, LBJ?  Can you accurately identify the differences between your lenses capable of resolving 40lp/mm and 50lp/mm?  If you can, then when you buy your M10-R, apparently you need to sell all your lenses of less than 50lp/mm?  The point I was making was that even a lens which resolves less than 50lp/mm (if you actually believe the figures) will still perform better on a 40MP sensor based camera than a 24MP based camera.

So, you buy the highest resolving lenses in pursuit of "balance" - was does that look like in your photos?

For myself, I really couldn't care less about this sort of nonsense.  My lenses range 1948-1960-1967-1980-2006-2008-2013-2015  Each has its own fingerprint and character.  I would lose a lot in pursuit of "balance" if I ditched the 6 lenses which pre-dated the mythical perfect date.

You need to get out and take pictures more, mate  😀

[scott kirkpatrick]

The problem with talking about "balance" is that the steps in lenses and bodies are big steps and you (well, I) don't make them at the same time.  So we're not trading a little more lens for a little less camera.  We have some lenses, and decide if a new camera will get more out of them.  Or we have a new camera and decide if it makes it worth while to invest as well in a "modern" sharp edge-to-edge lens.  If that kind of lens is not to our taste, it's not even a question.  

The other problem with discussing "balance" is that the word is more appropriate to describe zero-sum situations, where having more of one thing requires that you make do with less of the other  In algebra terms if the quality of one factor is x, lying between zero and one, then the other factor is reduced by 1-x.  If it is appropriate to multiply the two factors to come up with an overall quality, you get x(1-x) as the result.  That's zero, the worst possible outcome, if either x or 1-x is maximized, and the best result is obtained with half a loaf, or x = 1/2.  But that's only 1/4 of some idealized goal, and here we can, if our budget permits it, maximize both cameras and lenses at the same time.  Or go back to lenses with character and perhaps get a bit more of that character without losing anything.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[pgk]

11 hours ago, Printmaker said:

An off topic bit of trivia... Back in the day when color reproduction was accomplished with enlargers and process cameras, working with "APO" lenses was critical. Four films were generated through an analog process from a transparency or flat art which were then burned onto printing plates

BTW Paul, nice photos on your website, You are a brave man diving off the coast of Ireland. Or you have a very good dry suit.

I once had to make a set of separations. Once was enough! A painstaking, meticulous process which I found utterly boring. Never again.

Thanks. Drysuit is just back from the makers with new zip - the old one was weeping and wasn't going to get better. Cold water diving is about keeping warm as far as I am concerned. Modern undercuts are extraordinarily good. I use a 'Weasel' which is basically a boiler suit made from sleeping bag.

On topic, I wonder if there is an MTF for software lens correction? Well, obviously there must be (or it wouldn't be predictable), but are the SL lens curves incorporating it I wonder?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[willeica]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Looks like marketing, smells like marketing, tastes ... etc etc

Where does this get you, LBJ?  Can you accurately identify the differences between your lenses capable of resolving 40lp/mm and 50lp/mm?  If you can, then when you buy your M10-R, apparently you need to sell all your lenses of less than 50lp/mm?  The point I was making was that even a lens which resolves less than 50lp/mm (if you actually believe the figures) will still perform better on a 40MP sensor based camera than a 24MP based camera.

So, you buy the highest resolving lenses in pursuit of "balance" - was does that look like in your photos?

For myself, I really couldn't care less about this sort of nonsense.  My lenses range 1948-1960-1967-1980-2006-2008-2013-2015  Each has its own fingerprint and character.  I would lose a lot in pursuit of "balance" if I ditched the 6 lenses which pre-dated the mythical perfect date.

You need to get out and take pictures more, mate  😀

I agree 100% with everything you say. Your old lenses won’t perform any worse on an M10-R . I am wondering what is the whole point behind all of this, apart from marketing spin. Leica sets great store by its heritage and the M camera is very much part of this . This has been repeated many times by Dr Kaufmann and Stefan Daniel. Even more important than this, this has also been the view expressed by many Leica owners and societies around the world. So what is the point of all of this? The Leica M almost uniquely among modern cameras does not rely on any electronic communication  (forget the 6 bit code which is not strictly necessary for use) between the lens and the camera giving users access to a vast heritage of optical excellence. It is part of what we are and should not be abandoned lightly.

William

[scott kirkpatrick]

I agree that this is a silly conversation, although the newer, higher resolution sensors do present interesting qualities to discuss.  As for the six-bit code straying from the non-electronic ethos of the film era, It's just Leica coming along after its usual period (years) of careful consideration.  Remember when cameras could read the bar codes on a film cassette and set the ASA/DIN sensitivity?  And I still sometimes use an X-Pan which starts up by unrolling the whole roll of film so that when finished the film will be already inside the cassette ready to be changed.  The M is not there yet.