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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, 01af said:

No.

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

I thought they also resolved the focus shift issue with the first 35 Summilux ASPH, or was that incidental?

[Advertisement]

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

[01af]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb IkarusJohn:

I thought [Floating Elements] also resolved the focus-shift issue ...

That's a common misconception.

Floating elements don't move around to correct for aperture-related focus shift (ARFS)—so no, they don't address ARFS directly. But then, ARFS is caused by spherical aberration. And floating elements reduce spherical aberration at distances shorter than infinity. So they help reducing ARFS indirectly.

[LBJ2]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

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 ...

"I think the OP is reading too much into what was a general observation" You might be right. But clearly there are at least three generations of M lenses as I described on page one of this thread, each generation with optical improvements.

There does however seem to be a point in time when some Lenses were redesigned specifically for the Digital sensors. From what I read that included new coatings to help against potential digital sensor reflections. But not sure if that could be considered 'Modern lens design" 

Peter Karbe already gave the answer in his video how to determine via MTF at 40 lp/mm, which lenses will resolve even beyond 40 MPs sensors wide open. F8 seems to be the equalizer for almost all the lenses old or new on any of these sensors. More than one way to answer my question I suppose.

Still googling 😉 

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

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

True - but this was a question about M lenses in an M thread....... although I'm an interloper who no longer has an M. 

[Rick in CO]

34 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Peter Karbe already gave the answer in his video how to determine via MTF at 40 lp/mm, which lenses will resolve even beyond 40 MPs sensors wide open. F8 seems to be the equalizer for almost all the lenses old or new on any of these sensors. More than one way to answer my question I suppose.

Yes, you can figure it out by inspecting the published MTF data for each older lens.

I had three issues with Herr Karbe's talk.

First, he said the light flux drops off in aperture value going to smaller sensor size.  My understanding is that the amount of light that reaches the sensor is equivalent for a given f-stop regardless of sensor size;  f1.4 is f1.4.  What changes is the apparent depth of field per aperture per sensor size, increasing an equivalent to the crop size; APC by 1.6, four thirds by 2-fold, etc.  What I hoped he might talk about was how the TL-APC lens design permits the cone of light that reaches the smaller sensor allows the field of illumination to be more evenly distributed than on the larger sensor.  The new SL full-frame lenses appear to accomplish that on full frame, which may have been his original point.

Second, he mentioned that the SL lenses scored high on user convenience and even compactness.  Autofocus is certainly more convenient, but those new SL full format lenses are huge.  Fine for the studio shooter but not very conducive to carrying around in the field.  I would barely give them a 5 for compactness, certainly not 8-9.

Third, are the new TL lenses really at their sharpest wide open?  That would be amazing!

[willeica]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

as are many of the now historic lenses; but the latter may have challenges, and charms ...

Or 'character', something sometimes lacking in modern lenses with boring clean edge to edge sharpness. There is a danger of paralysis by (over) analysis on a topic like this. Peter Karbe uses a tongue in cheek 'shoot wide open' mantra, but that begs the question as to why his company puts all those other silly apertures on the lenses it makes. Of course, Leica AG will want  customers to buy as many of the latest model lenses as possible, and there may be more on the way, but, for amusement, forum members could try counting the number of lenses on this (incomplete) list which can be used on the latest digital Ms.

https://collectiblend.com/Lenses/Leitz/

They should include any (not prohibited in the manual) lenses that are M mount and also any that can be used with an adapter. Then they can add to that list the suitable lenses in those mounts that are or were made by other manufacturers. Finally, they can then figure out how many lifetimes it will take them to use all of those lenses. For what its worth, Jono says he got good performance on the M10-R with a Noctilux f1.2, which was last manufactured in 1975, 45 years ago.

To say that Leica M users are spoilt for lens choices is a huge understatement.

William

[UliWer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 26 Minuten schrieb Rick in CO:

Second, he mentioned that the SL lenses scored high on user convenience and even compactness.  Autofocus is certainly more convenient, but those new SL full format lenses are huge.  Fine for the studio shooter but not very conducive to carrying around in the field.  I would barely give them a 5 for compactness, certainly not 8-9.

Mr. Karbe "invented" his own definiton of compactness, which he calls "relative compactness". I think it is mentioned on a chart he shows in the video, but he doesn't explain it. He dealt with it explicitly when he talked to the LHSA meeting in Wetzlar. He puts the diameter of the lenses entry pupil - which is much larger for L-lenses than for M-lenses - in relation to the diameter of the camera's bayonet connection - which is also considerably larger for L than for M. With this relation L-lenses gain a lot of "compactness" - though he also admits that (most) M-lenses are still unbeatable. And he also compares the relation between entry pupil and bayonet diameter to the camera's sensor size. As APS-C sensors are a lot smaller than full-frame sensors he concludes, that L-Lenses for the SL are more "compact" than TL-lenses for APS-C - even though the latter are a lot smaller than their L-compagnons. He doesn't mention this, but his idea of "relative compactness" makes the Leica L-lenses much more "compact" than e.g. Zeiss lenses for the Sony A bodies - which have a much smaller bayonet connection.

Even though his concept may have some justification it doesn't help the user who has to handle a big L-lens. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by UliWer

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Mr. Karbe "invented" his own definiton of compactness, which he calls "relative compactness". I think it is mentioned on a chart he shows in the video, but he doesn't explain it. He dealt with it explicitly when he talked to the LHSA meeting in Wetzlar. He puts the diameter of the lenses entry pupil - which is much larger for L-lenses than for M-lenses - in relation to the diameter of the camera's bayonet connection - which is also considerably larger for L than for M. With this relation L-lenses gain a lot of "compactness" - though he also admits that (most) M-lenses are still unbeatable. And he also compares the relation between entry pupil and bayonet diameter to the camera's sensor size. As APS-C sensors are a lot smaller than full-frame sensors he concludes, that L-Lenses for the SL are more "compact" than TL-lenses for APS-C - even though the latter are a lot smaller than their L-compagnons. He doesn't mention this, but his idea of "relative compactness" makes the Leica L-lenses much more "compact" than e.g. Zeiss lenses for the Sony A bodies - which have a much smaller bayonet connection.

Even though his concept may have some justification it doesn't help the user who has to handle a big L-lens. 

On the other hand, Karbe also explains in the video how some of the SL lenses are bigger than they would ordinarily be due to the standardization of barrel size.  He explicitly says that this is the reason that the SL 35 is the best performer, since lenses typically get progressively smaller from 90mm to 35mm, which he demonstrates using a photo of the SL75 compared to an M 75, 50, and 35mm counterpart.  The extra space in the SL35 barrel size provided the opportunity to better optimize its performance. He recognized that the SL lenses were extremely large compared to the Ms, as the chart highlighted.

Jeff

[UliWer]

Am 22.7.2020 um 21:49 schrieb LBJ2:

What defines Modern Leica M glass?

Modern Leica M glass is defined - e contrario - here:   https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268173-the-view-through-older-glass/

For "Old Glass" "There's no restriction on the type of lens except that it should not be the current model...". So "Modern Glass" is always the current model.

One cannot expect someone who speaks for Leica to say: "Look, we made a new camera with a huge sensor, but it won't be worse if you use it with a 5cm Elmar from Berek's time". They earn their wages by selling lenses, and Leica can sell only  current lenses, since Berek's or Mandler's lenses were sold long ago. So they have to leave the praise for "old glass" or "Mandler's magic" to a handful of "old farts" who frequent certain threads and subsections of this forum. Though there are some among them who say: "A M10 Monochrom is way too expensive ... but I have so many "old glass" lenses and it might be the best solution for them...". I still think this is right. 

 

[willeica]

21 minutes ago, UliWer said:

Modern Leica M glass is defined - e contrario - here:   https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/268173-the-view-through-older-glass/

For "Old Glass" "There's no restriction on the type of lens except that it should not be the current model...". So "Modern Glass" is always the current model.

One cannot expect someone who speaks for Leica to say: "Look, we made a new camera with a huge sensor, but it won't be worse if you use it with a 5cm Elmar from Berek's time". They earn their wages by selling lenses, and Leica can sell only  current lenses, since Berek's or Mandler's lenses were sold long ago. So they have to leave the praise for "old glass" or "Mandler's magic" to a handful of "old farts" who frequent certain threads and subsections of this forum. Though there are some among them who say: "A M10 Monochrom is way too expensive ... but I have so many "old glass" lenses and it might be the best solution for them...". I still think this is right. 

 

Real aficionados of old lenses never refer to them as ‘glass’. This is all part of today’s ‘digi-speak’ along with ‘files’ and ‘analog’ and other terms which have no relevance to good photography. There is nothing wrong with using old lenses and liking their output. I was at the talk by Peter Karbe at Wetzlar and spoke to him afterwards. He is very much a company man and a team player. He loves his work and is very dedicated to it. While he was aware of Leica’s optical past it does not really inform his current work. However, that should not stop those of us who enjoy the using older lenses from continuing to do so. There are no rights and wrongs about this and we have a wonderful choice of lenses to use. Mr Karbe is a company employee and we are it’s customers. He does not tell us what we should do with our Leica products old and new, nor would he want to, certainly not the man that I met.

William

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, willeica said:

Real aficionados of old lenses never refer to them as ‘glass’.

Do you know all of them?

[willeica]

7 hours ago, Joachim_I said:

Do you know all of them?

No, but I know enough of them and I also participate in auctions and have a substantial amount of literature on the subject and I have never seen that term being used except by people discussing digital cameras on online forums.

William

Edited July 24, 2020 by willeica

[pgk]

8 hours ago, willeica said:

Real aficionados of old lenses never refer to them as ‘glass’.

We could start a whole thread on 'photographic technical slang'! A lot of language is used loosely to vaguely describe camera associated gear and is then subverted by arguing what is and isn't covered by such terminology, like 'modern' - oh, full circle😁!

[willeica]

4 minutes ago, pgk said:

We could start a whole thread on 'photographic technical slang'! A lot of language is used loosely to vaguely describe camera associated gear and is then subverted by arguing what is and isn't covered by such terminology, like 'modern' - oh, full circle😁!

Thanks Paul. We don't need to invent new terms for what is described already. For example, texts describe the type of glass that is used either by manufacturer source, eg Goerz, or by type, crown, flint etc. but to refer to lenses collectively as glass just confuses the issue. As for 'analog' if you back to text books from as recently as the 1990s, you will not see this term. It came into use to describe something that is 'not digital'. I agree that 'technical slang' is a good word for what appears on forums. As for what can be used on the latest digital Ms, I have done my best above to describe the full range of what might be used. Jono had I thought capped all of this by saying that he got good performance out of a 45+ year old lens on the M10-R. That should be enough for anyone.

William

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, willeica said:

... and I have never seen that term being used except by people discussing digital cameras on online forums.

People discussing digital cameras on online forums still can be (and often are) real aficionados of old lenses, irrespective of their use of a phrase like "old glass".

[pgk]

15 minutes ago, Joachim_I said:

People discussing digital cameras on online forums still can be (and often are) real aficionados of old lenses, irrespective of their use of a phrase like "old glass".

The term 'old glass' could be used (and probably was) to describe lenses made with pre-Jena higher refractive index glasses which were produced from the 1880s onwards. The trouble with using such slang terminology is that it creates yet more confusion. Depending on your point of view, being an afficiando of old lenses might actually make you resent such terminology when applied elsewhere. Many of the arguments on the forum are in essence about descriptors which mean different things to different people. "Modern' in the context of Leica lenses might well mean anything with an M bayonet if you are a Screw Thread Leica enthusiast. Definitions are important and need to be seen within the context in which they are used, but it is often tricky with overlap and misunderstanding.

And FWIW I am currently writing up a history of some very old photographic lenses and the loose photographic terminology used back in mid-Victorian times is frustrating. Its not a new thing at all. Crown and Flint glasses were referred to as being the two types used in lens making. Unfortunately its difficult to determine exactly which either was or how much variation was available in each type, let alone what was specifically used in particular lenses. In any case some modern lenses now use 'plastic' lens elements so the generic term 'glass' may already be outdated ....

[01af]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Rick in CO:

First, he said the light flux drops off in aperture value going to smaller sensor size.  My understanding is that the amount of light that reaches the sensor is equivalent ...

Equivalent to what? Or did you just mean equal?

.

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Rick in CO:

... for a given f-stop regardless of sensor size;  f/1.4 is f/1.4.

Seems you're confusing amount of light with brightness. At the same brightness and same exposure, the smaller sensor will capture a smaller amount of light.

[willeica]

1 hour ago, Joachim_I said:

People discussing digital cameras on online forums still can be (and often are) real aficionados of old lenses, irrespective of their use of a phrase like "old glass".

I am sure you are correct about this, but the terminology is confusing as my friend Paul points out above. A modern photographic lens has glass, metal, plastic and other elements to achieve the necessary  effects. 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. Terms like this are confusing and ultimately meaningless.

William 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Erato]

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

In short -- APO, ASPH. & FLE., etc.

[TomB_tx]

12 hours ago, UliWer said:

So "Modern Glass" is always the current model.

This is certainly the definition preferred by Leica, as they want customers to move to current models from older lenses, as they only make profit on sales of current model lenses.