Why Never Stop Down?

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, pedaes said:

Kool aid?

No M Cameras - Name me a film camera with dust reduction?

Every single film camera that advance film to the next frame 😋. The dust comes in later when you take out the film (at least in my case )

Edited October 19, 2020 by Aryel

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Am 12.10.2020 um 17:07 schrieb UliWer:

There is - or perhaps there was - a way of following the demand for not stopping down and being comfortable with sufficient depth of focus at the same time. The 1:3.8/18mm Super-Elmar-M and the 1:3.8/24mm Elmar-M are lenses which fulfill every wish for sharpness and resolution fully opened and don‘t give you much room to worry about dof. With good performance at high ISO values of modern digital cameras the modest opening is no reason to feel left behind. On a lesser extent you may say the same for the Summarit series. 

Though Leica - or better: their customers - didn’t appreciate those qualities. They prefer spending more money on worse optical performance and the bad conscience caused by some dubious marketing speech by Leica Camera, when they reasonably stop down a Summilux.

I bought  my 35 pre asph Summilux because it was better at f5.6 than the Summicron I was using. Wide open it has a little too much "Leica Glow", f2 is nice again better than the Summicron I had. There are a lot of f stops, no rason not to use the ones that you need for an image. 

[Advertisement]

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

[4r36]

I hope it is not too late for me to resume this thread, which I read with great interest after watching Karbe's interview. 

 

I have the impression that the point he wants to make is not so much that, in modern Leica lenses, stopping down does not improve performance. As some of you have pointed out by referring to both the charts and first hand experience, aberrations get corrected at narrower apertures. Full stop.

However, when Karbe tries to explain the distinctive look of Leica lenses, he shows a picture shot wide open and says:

"This is a picture I like very much because it's so crisp, and sharp, and so 3-dimensional and you can realise this with all lenses. This is Leica. This is Leica bokeh." 

In my view, what he's trying to convey here and when, with a bit of irony, he says "are you sure that you want to stop-down!?", it is precisely that the personal "character" of Leica lenses can be appreciated at wide apertures. Although the performance goes up by stepping down two or three stops, by doing so we enter in a more anonymous field in which lenses tend to render and perform similarly. As often said in a lens comparison (as already quoted by Jaeger): "either lens takes sharp images when stop down to f/5.6." 

That said, I think Karbe would deny that his main aim is to develop a "clinical" optical rendering. Of course, he and his team at Leica have worked hard to avoid that a lens "wide open is too soft and has bad CA and so on". Yet this has nothing to do with a clinical rendering. One has the impression of a "clinical" rendering only because he shoots at narrow apertures, thereby failing to see the characteristic soul of the lens when shot wide open. This is, "what we actually pay for". 

 

Although people have not noticed it,  I found very interesting that Karbe, acclaimed as the Master of optical perfection, at the end of his presentation shows some macro pictures and stress that "this is not movement, this is aberration!", but then he adds that he took these pictures anyway "because I was so fascinated by this". 

 

[armadsen]

There's a little easy-to-miss comment in the interview linked earlier in the the thread where Karbe essentially says if you're going to shoot stopped down, you're better off with a slower, presumably smaller/lighter lens. That is, why carry around a Noctilux if you're going to shoot it stopped down farther than a Summicron?

Quote

Do I really need this aperture, or do I take a smaller one and use this lens wide open.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by armadsen

[trickness]

Peter Karbe is renowned for his lens designs - not his photographs.

”Ultimate Performance” and artistic merit often, if not usually, have nothing to do with each other.

 

 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by trickness

[MarkP]

On 10/9/2020 at 9:28 AM, earleygallery said:

It's a little like a chef saying that their dish is so good you don't need to add any seasoning or sauces/mustard.

It's a little like a chef saying that their dish is so good you only need to eat what's on the outer edge of the plate.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 8.10.2020 um 03:44 schrieb MrFriendly:

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm very new to Leica.

I've heard Peter Karbe talking about light flux and how we should never stop down if we don't need the depth of field.  He also says how if we stop down to, say, 5.6 only a very small percentage of the lens performance is used.  So why is that in the MTF charts the performance of the lens actually goes up when you stop down?  Or in other words, besides narrow depth of field, what else do we lose when we stop down?  It certainly isn't contract, so what is he talking about?

We loose vignetting and corner degration !) when stopping down.

[Herr Barnack]

Practice photographic anarchy, says me.  Make a couple of images wide open.  Make a couple at f/4.  Make a couple at f/8.   Make a couple that are one stop less than minimum aperture of the lens you are using.

When you import the files into Lightroom/Photoshop/whatever, look at them and see which aperture you like best. 

Having choices is a good thing.

[pippy]

On 2/7/2022 at 2:45 PM, 4r36 said:

...when Karbe tries to explain the distinctive look of Leica lenses, he shows a picture shot wide open and says:

"This is a picture I like very much because it's so crisp, and sharp, and so 3-dimensional and you can realise this with all lenses. This is Leica. This is Leica bokeh." 

In my view, what he's trying to convey here and when, with a bit of irony, he says "are you sure that you want to stop-down!?", it is precisely that the personal "character" of Leica lenses can be appreciated at wide apertures. Although the performance goes up by stepping down two or three stops, by doing so we enter in a more anonymous field in which lenses tend to render and perform similarly...

...One has the impression of a "clinical" rendering...(...if one...)...shoots at narrow apertures, thereby failing to see the characteristic soul of the lens when shot wide open. This is, "what we actually pay for"...

I agree with everything in your post, 4r36, but one thing Herr Karbe might be overlooking is that not every Leica user chooses to shoot with a Leica because of their optics.

Personally speaking the 'characteristic soul' of any lens will be a factor in, perhaps, fewer than 5% of my images. The 'characteristic soul' of using a Leica M camera, however, is something which I experience every time I pick up the camera and with every single frame I shoot.

That is why I choose to use an M; not the lenses.

Philip.

Edited May 11, 2022 by pippy

[4r36]

 

39 minutes ago, pippy said:

I agree with everything in your post, 4r36, but one thing Herr Karbe might be overlooking is that not every Leica user chooses to shoot with a Leica because of their optics.

Personally speaking the 'characteristic soul' of any lens will be a factor in, perhaps, fewer than 5% of my images. The 'characteristic soul' of using a Leica M camera, however, is something which I experience every time I pick up the camera and with every single frame I shoot.

That is why I choose to use an M; not the lenses.

Philip.

I shoot only on film and, perhaps, I should say that the camera is not so important to me, as the rendering depends entirely on the type of film and lens I use. However, I must admit that this is not the case. Holding, framing, cocking the shutter, listening to its sound, and so fourth, on my M3 is an essential part of the whole experience. From September to April I used an Olympus Om1, as my M3 needed a CLA. Although I really liked the Olympus (it's just wonderful), I missed the feeling of the Leica. Everything is so solid and smooth with it. I don't want to sound too romantic, but that piece of brass is a jewel!

 

P.S.: That said, I laugh at myself. I can imagine a random Nikon guy, who happen to read my post here. I'm sure he would think something like: "another Italian guy, sitting at the table with other Italian guys, who all just keep repeating and convincing themselves that Italian cuisine is the best in the world!" 😂

Edited May 11, 2022 by 4r36

[evikne]

On 10/8/2020 at 10:11 AM, evikne said:

With my eyes I can only focus on one thing at a time. I like that this is reflected in my photos as well. I rarely see any reason to stop down to get more into focus. And it's great to have lenses that I can keep wide open without having to worry about the image quality.

I see that in less than two years my photographic taste has changed/evolved quite a bit. I used to be a wide open shooter most of the time. The Karbe lenses "invite" to be used wide open, because their performance is so good. 

But today I only use Mandler lenses. These usually perform better stopped down a little, so unless I want their special wide open look, I now try using different apertures, depending on the situation.

I still appreciate good bokeh in the right situations, but now I feel I have more photographic tools to play with.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

On 10/8/2020 at 4:11 AM, evikne said:

With my eyes I can only focus on one thing at a time. I like that this is reflected in my photos as well. I rarely see any reason to stop down to get more into focus. And it's great to have lenses that I can keep wide open without having to worry about the image quality.

The thing is, a photograph is a flat 2d object. We focus on the entirety of the photograph. That is, we focus on the blurry as much as on the sharp parts. That is why a lot of the times too much boke is not very aesthetic or good looking.

[evikne]

2 hours ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

The thing is, a photograph is a flat 2d object. We focus on the entirety of the photograph. That is, we focus on the blurry as much as on the sharp parts. That is why a lot of the times too much boke is not very aesthetic or good looking.

I understand what you mean. A photograph with shallow depth of field will have a kind of 3D effect when you look at the focused part of the image. But as soon as you move your gaze away from that point, you'll spoil that effect. In the real world, you can never really fix your gaze on the blurred background; you can only sense it.

[Dennis]

With my M10, I use the 35s a lot at f4… 

 

[cheekz4dayz]

On 5/11/2022 at 12:19 PM, 4r36 said:

 

I shoot only on film and, perhaps, I should say that the camera is not so important to me, as the rendering depends entirely on the type of film and lens I use. However, I must admit that this is not the case. Holding, framing, cocking the shutter, listening to its sound, and so fourth, on my M3 is an essential part of the whole experience. From September to April I used an Olympus Om1, as my M3 needed a CLA. Although I really liked the Olympus (it's just wonderful), I missed the feeling of the Leica. Everything is so solid and smooth with it. I don't want to sound too romantic, but that piece of brass is a jewel!

 

P.S.: That said, I laugh at myself. I can imagine a random Nikon guy, who happen to read my post here. I'm sure he would think something like: "another Italian guy, sitting at the table with other Italian guys, who all just keep repeating and convincing themselves that Italian cuisine is the best in the world!" 😂

lmao this was hilarious! I started photography on a fuji xt-2. I'm currently in Bogotá for a week and did a test run with the Fuji (I still have it for nostalgia) for date night before I left. Even though I still love that camera it felt so cheap compared to my Q2 and sl2 system. I got home after dinner and just said "fuck it, I'm taking my q2 and sl2 to Bogota. If it gets stolen whatever this is why I have insurance. Why spend all this money on Leica gear when I can't even enjoy the photography because I'm afraid 🙄"

Turned out to be the best decision as I fully enjoyed this last week. Yes it's insane that Leica cameras feel right to me when I use them but this is part of how I enjoy life 😁

Thanks for sharing and for your earlier post as well. I really like the Peter Karbe interviews. I know some may feel like what he said was sacrilege but I'm actually from the same school of thought. I rarely ever post process images just because it's not fun to me. I don't care that you can get so much more our of the images. I do keep all raw files and jpegs in case I ever need them. But the truth is I got into photography to document my life and what I see in the world. If people don't like my images because I don't post process, oh well 😂

 

Happy Shooting Y'all!

[adan]

13 hours ago, cheekz4dayz said:

I really like the Peter Karbe interviews. I know some may feel like what he said was sacrilege but I'm actually from the same school of thought.

Peter has a habit of overstating things, for shock-value or irony.

He once said that the 75mm Summilux-M "was his least-favorite" M lens. Mostly to yank the chain of (tease) all the users who love it and espouse it, and other older lenses "with character."

Later on, he said, more or less, "C'mon guys - I was just kidding!" And I believe he has somewhat - softened - his stance regarding shooting wide-open as well.

Peter's job is to create, and then promote, Leica's "newest and best." One feature of which is their phenomenal performance wide-open. Leica earns diddly-squat off M-users buying lenses Leica no longer makes (or these day, other brands). To which I plead guilty - maybe I will get a brand-new Karbe/Leica lens sometime soon, just to keep Peter happy and Leica in business (or vice-versa).

[tom0511]

I use the whole aparture range between wide open up to f16. Sometimes, I really like the subject seperation of shooting wide open. (Eventhough 50/.95 or 1.0 is in most cases "over the top" for my personal taste), but I often shoot f2.0 and sometimes my 28 at f1.4.

It also depends about the whole scene, how interesting is the rest of the image, any disturbing things I cant get rid off in the background, or is the background important and interesting.

Overall - fo my taste - it is very nice to have the option too shoot wide open if wanted, and to have good IQ and nice bokeh when shooting wide open.

[idusidusi]

On 10/10/2020 at 5:47 PM, Dennis said:

Welcome to the forum.

I'm not losing, I'm earning.
When I shoot and put the camera (with a 35) in the bag, I set the aperture @ f/5.6, always. It's my base aperture. And when I need more shallow DOP, I shoot wider open. Easy
But 5.6 is my start. Why? Mostly to add context to the photo, layers, information. More DOP, usually better IQ and fewer issues.

If you are new to Leica, you will find many interesting threads in this forum, it's an amazing source of passion, knowledge and entertainment. Seek, read, be inspired, but always use your own judgment to make choices.

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Since I received my M11, I have gone back to observing the weather, and setting the camera before leaving the home. I of course will also change setting accordingly if needed outside. I am also trying auto ISO, auto speed, and I set the f-Stop to what I want on the lens. I find I am quite happy in that mode. Contemplating going to watch moto-cross soon with a 135mm lens, I think then I will use speed also set by me and not auto.

You are right there are numerous very informative threads throughout this forum.

[Overgaard]

On 10/7/2020 at 9:44 PM, MrFriendly said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I'm very new to Leica.

I've heard Peter Karbe talking about light flux and how we should never stop down if we don't need the depth of field.  He also says how if we stop down to, say, 5.6 only a very small percentage of the lens performance is used.  So why is that in the MTF charts the performance of the lens actually goes up when you stop down?  Or in other words, besides narrow depth of field, what else do we lose when we stop down?  It certainly isn't contract, so what is he talking about?

I had this talk with Peter Karbe, and he does say "don't stop down, unless for depth of field". 

Yes, he does design lenses that are optimized for wide open use, which is a difference from normal lens designs that risk an arm and a leg to be "low light" lenses but perform their excellence at f/5.6 or so. Many f/1.4 lenses traditionally are under pressure at f/1.4 and are better at f/2.0 and maybe should have stayed with that as their wides aperture. The Canon 85mm f/1.2 for example creates amazing look, but not very hight quality. So their later 85mm f/1.4 performs almost the same dreamy look, but at a less wide aperture offered, also performs well wide open. 

Peter Karbe and Leica does make f/2.0 lenses and f/2.8 lenses, and they are more compact, cost less and all. Different game. 

 

So understand Mr. Karbe in the right context: (If you buy a 50mm f/0.95 or 35mm f/1.4 lens, then) "don't stop down". use it wide open, because it was designed for it and you paid extra to get that extreme design. If you want more sharpness, then get a f/2.8 or f/4.0 lens to begin with.

Generally going from f/2.0 to f/1.4 double the price of the lens. He also said that the 28/1.4, 28/2.0 and 28/2.8 lenses are the same performance, "only the depth of field is the difference" which is different than for example the 50/0.95 where he said that if you stop that lens down to f/2.0 it is same or better performance than the 50mm APO. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[lct]

1 hour ago, Overgaard said:

So understand Mr. Karbe in the right context: (If you buy a 50mm f/0.95 or 35mm f/1.4 lens, then) "don't stop down". use it wide open, because it was designed for it and you paid extra to get that extreme design. If you want more sharpness, then get a f/2.8 or f/4.0 lens to begin with.

I don't understand him in that context either i must say. Many people cannot afford two different copies of the same focal length as far as Leica lenses are concerned so if they buy a 50/1.4 asph for instance it is to get the better performance at f/1.4 and, say, at f/5.6 but also at f/11 as far as possible and this is what the 50/1.4 asph offers compared to the 50/2 v5 basically. 50/2 apo is another story.