The main problem of the "Leica look"

[roydonian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, pgk said:

Mandler's 35mm Summilux is such a lens because lens designers concluded in a paper on this lens written in the early 2000s, that its performance could not have been bettered given the glass types available when it was designed.

Can you give any details of this paper that would allow me to track down a copy?

[Chaemono]

Leica look at 5:47 here:

 

 

[LBJ2]

20 hours ago, pgk said:

Even so nuances are hard to see. Ad they may or may not be relevant. Optical design is very technical these days. A friend who is a lens designer recently did some work for me looking at a very old 1857 lens and he could predict MTF data, field curvature, aberration details and a great deal more, very quickly and easily. The transition from point of focus to out of focus can be 'designed' these days too - Zeiss have published about this some years ago in a paper which was readily available. Basically designers can control how lenses produce images because they have software and computing power which enables them to do so and they understand a huge amount about cause and effect of optical design. In the past this was not so much the case so lenses would have characteristics which were not predicted, but may sometimes  have been the product of experience - Mandler's 35mm Summilux is such a lens because lens designers concluded in a paper on this lens written in the early 2000s, that its performance could not have been bettered given the glass types available when it was designed. Mandler seems to have combined technical design with his experience of outcomes and produced an extraordinary lens in this case. My point is that in order for there to be any specific look, then designers need to know exactly what the parameters which produce this look actually are. As many varied designers have worked on Leica M lenses during a period of evolving optical design, this is unlikely in the extreme. So whilst there often are nuances of difference between lenses, these nuances are not consistent over time and lenses.

I would put forth optical design has always been technical even as applied under the light oil lamps and optical formulas have always been repeatable. Regardless of early 20th century technology or near 2021 technology. Numbers are numbers. The big difference is technology has now gotten to the point that it can reproduce at a much larger and faster scale with much tighter tolerances able to eliminate many of the issues that were harder to design-out even ten years ago. Or as you suggested designers now have a lot more control.

Optical design nuances are harder for some to see than others and many will never see as I’ve identified with my own home-grown blind tests. Yes if the photog has done a very good job, nobody cares about nuances other than perhaps other photographers as the composition is what matters to the viewer. 

[LBJ2]

Yes, I had already seen this video too, even posted it on another forum as a similar reference. The guy did a fine job even over Youtube compression presenting the nuances of two very fine systems. Sadly this same Youtuber experienced some technical or quality difficulties with I think two SLS cameras in a row and decided to return the whole Leica SL kit and I think that was the end of his Leica adventure.  

[MyLeicaWorld]

These are what I call the leica look... m10 with summicron 28 and summicron 35.. all asph..

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!

[LBJ2]

Is there an identifiable "Look" among optics systems? This professional DP and Cinema Camera Assistant walks us through two of the most important considerations of selecting a cinema lens system #1 Ergonomics # 2 The Look. He goes into how lens FL is used as well in other videos too.

As I commented earlier in this thread, identifying and utilizing a particular optics "Look" is very common in the cinema industry. The Look is absolutely not a myth but maybe it takes a practiced eye and repetition and if anything the Look has become even more repeatable/realiable since mechanism was introduce to lens production insuring less human production errors/imperfection to the expected Look. 

In this video the particular look associated with a cinema lens set is described with examples provided from several well known classic films from some of the most popular cinema sets:

Zeiss Super Speed cinema lenses from 1970's, 1980's 1990's "known for sharp, lower contrast, milky, neutral to cool colour transitions, circular flares that fog up the lens with light" examples are presented.

Panavision C series ( anamorphic) from 1968 "The look is legendary" "The Classic Anamorphic Hollywood Look" Not overly sharp, graduated depth of field, classic anamorphic oval bokeh, and famous for blue streak horizontal flares"

Cooke S4 described as modern lenses from the late 1990's "colour matched across the set, sharp warm look, increased contrast, minimal "vintage" aberrations and healthy skin tones" 

In part two starts with:

Cooke Speed Panchro form the 1920's through 1960's "The Cooke Look, warm and romantic, slightly less contrast, vintage look often used for period films." These lenses were produced before standardized precise production techniques the look of each lens might vary slightly warmer or slightly different image characteristics" 

 

 

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Is there an identifiable "Look" among optics systems?

The links show that there CAN be a 'look', when, that is, designers have a specific goal in mind and produce a series of 'matched' lenses which all produce images with similar characteristics. But there is NO Leica M look because the opposite is true, unless that is, that you are referring to specific 'sets' of lenses, such as those designed by Karbe's design team, or those produced under Mandler. But as a whole' Leica M (and/or ltm) lenses have varying characteristics and design requirements and some even represent the evolution of the optics of 35mm camera lenses. As an example look at the performance and characteristics of 28mm M lenses. Believe me, the earliest produced images very different to the latest!

[LBJ2]

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!

 

[pgk]

As its only an image file I have no idea what is said, but it appears to refer to (the 'series' of) modern fast aperture M lenses which are presumably being designed to specific parameters. It will not referent to all M lenses. As I have said before, it is quite possible to subtly vary the tradition from sharp to off and Zeiss have published information about this.

[LBJ2]

1 hour ago, pgk said:

The links show that there CAN be a 'look', when, that is, designers have a specific goal in mind and produce a series of 'matched' lenses which all produce images with similar characteristics. But there is NO Leica M look because the opposite is true, unless that is, that you are referring to specific 'sets' of lenses, such as those designed by Karbe's design team, or those produced under Mandler. But as a whole' Leica M (and/or ltm) lenses have varying characteristics and design requirements and some even represent the evolution of the optics of 35mm camera lenses. As an example look at the performance and characteristics of 28mm M lenses. Believe me, the earliest produced images very different to the latest!

"Believe me, the earliest produced images very different to the latest!" No doubt, vintage vs modern and more modern, probably easy enough to prove with internet photos. I believe Karber describes three generations of M lenses designs and surely design iterations of certain lenses among the generations.

Just curious, was there any attempt to design a more natural and 3D look ( or whatever they called the same back then) in a  Mandlar or earlier designs regardless of the imperfections that could not be designed out at the time due to available technologies, materials, heavy influence of different film types at the time? I think whatever design forumla results in a more natural/3D look is what I personally identify in the let me use the term "modern Leica Look" in the handful of modern Ms that I own. Some people describe this as the image looks "alive"

Also, who designed the latest Summicon 90 M that I use today--its has the pop too. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by LBJ2

[LBJ2]

54 minutes ago, pgk said:

As its only an image file I have no idea what is said, but it appears to refer to (the 'series' of) modern fast aperture M lenses which are presumably being designed to specific parameters. It will not referent to all M lenses. As I have said before, it is quite possible to subtly vary the tradition from sharp to off and Zeiss have published information about this.

Yes, I see similar “pop” among older and modern Zeiss lenses, clearly the look is repeatable and am about to compare the same with some of my Leica lenses. I’d post a blind test between Zeiss and Leica but given the response of my last blind test... I’ll spend my time elsewhere 😉

Edited January 1, 2021 by LBJ2

[pgk]

3 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

Just curious, was there any attempt to design a more natural and 3D look ( or whatever they called the same back then) in a  Mandlar or earlier designs regardless of the imperfections that could not be designed out at the time due to available technologies, materials, heavy influence of different film types at the time?

Mandler appears to have strived to design lenses which minimised all aberrations as best as they could given glass type availability and the use of spherical lenses (mostly). I referred earlier to a paper written about Mandler's 35mm Summilux which later design analysis showed to have been optimised as well as was possible given glass types then available. That was 60 years ago. Lens design has moved on a long way in that new lens design software, fast computers, more glass types and aspheric surfaces all appear to be readily available and in use. My guess is that designers such as Mandler were well aware that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus was adjustable, but I'd doubt that it was a part of their design requirements and that any pleasing transition was incidental. FWIW I have read somewhere that the 75mm Summilux was not one of Mandler's favourite designs although it is revered by some today for its 'dreamy' wide open performance. His 35mm Summilux does not perform well wide-open, but is a jewel of a lens and was a triumph of performance in a delightfully small package. I have one and also an Aspheric Summilux (pre-FLE) which performs far better at full aperture.

[LBJ2]

1 minute ago, pgk said:

Mandler appears to have strived to design lenses which minimised all aberrations as best as they could given glass type availability and the use of spherical lenses (mostly). I referred earlier to a paper written about Mandler's 35mm Summilux which later design analysis showed to have been optimised as well as was possible given glass types then available. That was 60 years ago. Lens design has moved on a long way in that new lens design software, fast computers, more glass types and aspheric surfaces all appear to be readily available and in use. My guess is that designers such as Mandler were well aware that the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus was adjustable, but I'd doubt that it was a part of their design requirements and that any pleasing transition was incidental. FWIW I have read somewhere that the 75mm Summilux was not one of Mandler's favourite designs although it is revered by some today for its 'dreamy' wide open performance. His 35mm Summilux does not perform well wide-open, but is a jewel of a lens and was a triumph of performance in a delightfully small package. I have one and also an Aspheric Summilux (pre-FLE) which performs far better at full aperture.

One thing that I am beginning to understand is most modern optics are derived from very old/original optical fórmulas with many of the newer coatings added along with, ASPH, FLE and finally groups/grouping needed for AF and in-lens stabilization which may or may not affect the 3D look which I have a feeling is what might be that certain something we see the common to at least modern Leica M lenses. 

[LBJ2]

On 12/30/2020 at 3:01 PM, pedaes said:

The second image is 'sharper' (logo) but so what. 

" but so what" my all time favorite forum response 💩

[pedaes]

47 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

" but so what" my all time favorite forum response 💩

Ask a silly question....

[LBJ2]

39 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Ask a silly question....

💩💩🤭

[adan]

2 hours ago, pgk said:

FWIW I have read somewhere that the 75mm Summilux was not one of Mandler's favourite designs although it is revered by some today for its 'dreamy' wide open performance.

Actually, Mandler thought the 75 Summilux was his personal crowning achievement and the lens he was most proud of. More resolution at f/2.0 than the contemporaneous 90mm Summicron III - and only slightly less at f/1.4; much less vignetting and "swirly bokeh" than the similar-diameter 50mm f/1.0; better (if not perfect) clarity at 0.75m than the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH; virtual elimination of coma; distortion of 0.3%; very low optical flare; etc. etc.

I.E. the highest "merit value" or balancing/optimizing of all possible aberrations that his optical software ever measured. Rather like the 35 Summilux, Mandler could not have made any one aspect better without reducing the total quality (given 1980 materials and techniques, and the predetermined limitations and requirements (f/1.4 aperture, diameter of the M-mount, viewfinder blockage, weight & balance).

It is Peter Karbe who at one point said Mandler's 75mm was Karbe's least-favorite Leica lens (possibly around the time his own APO-Summicron was introduced) - although Karbe has since walked that back, claiming he was just kidding around and trying to yank the chains of the Summilux cult.

[LBJ2]

27 minutes ago, adan said:

Actually, Mandler thought the 75 Summilux was his personal crowning achievement and the lens he was most proud of. More resolution at f/2.0 than the contemporaneous 90mm Summicron III - and only slightly less at f/1.4; much less vignetting and "swirly bokeh" than the similar-diameter 50mm f/1.0; better (if not perfect) clarity at 0.75m than the 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH; virtual elimination of coma; distortion of 0.3%; very low optical flare; etc. etc.

I.E. the highest "merit value" or balancing/optimizing of all possible aberrations that his optical software ever measured. Rather like the 35 Summilux, Mandler could not have made any one aspect better without reducing the total quality (given 1980 materials and techniques, and the predetermined limitations and requirements (f/1.4 aperture, diameter of the M-mount, viewfinder blockage, weight & balance).

It is Peter Karbe who at one point said Mandler's 75mm was Karbe's least-favorite Leica lens (possibly around the time his own APO-Summicron was introduced) - although Karbe has since walked that back, claiming he was just kidding around and trying to yank the chains of the Summilux cult.

"It is Peter Karbe who at one point said Mandler's 75mm was Karbe's least-favorite Leica lens (possibly around the time his own APO-Summicron was introduced) - although Karbe has since walked that back, claiming he was just kidding around and trying to yank the chains of the Summilux cult." - adan

Interesting! Where to read these sources online? 

Also, thought I would look up 75 summilux F1.4 - Mandler's images for evidence of the so called mythical Leica Look. 

"The 75mm Summilux-M f/1.4 is a legendary lens, designed in 1980 by Dr. Werner Mandler, and it only became more legendary when it discontinued in 2007.

After looking at the images posted here...clearly Mandler's design included what we call the Leica Look today in 2020/2021.

https://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-75mm-Summilux-M-f-14.html

**"The German vs. the Canadian version

The Leica 75mm Summilux-M exists in three versions which are essentially not different - photographically speaking. The lens design itself is exactly the same.

But the first version (1980-1982; Model 11 814) is with a ventilated hood attached. And then two years after the introduction, the lens was redesigned with a built-in lens hood (Model 11 815). The weight increased a tiny bit by this redesign of the lens barrel that had to fit the lens hood. But that is all." 

Edited January 1, 2021 by LBJ2

[Chaemono]

Am 30.12.2020 um 15:15 schrieb LBJ2:

Some major 3D Pop going on in this photo! As I posted before, stepping back from the monitor can help enhance the effect for those that might not be able to see it. Checking out the photo on the url posted, I see the photos was taken with the SL2-S ( BSI) + 75 Noctilux. 

Just curious, are you by any chance able to re-create similar composition with another non Leica camera and fast lens to compare. 

Sorry, I had read "with another Leica camera." Different bridge, different light now with the M10-P and the 75 Summicron. The shallower the DOF, the more pronounced the depth effect due to the gradual transition from the in-focus to the out-of-focus areas, but it's also obvious here.

Less compressed JPEG here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-9tc4xH/

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!

ISO 200 f/2 @1/4000 sec. Edited January 10, 2021 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[P1505]

Ok, I admit it, it’s real. Was out with the Q this morning and damn, the view in the EVF. It’s real. With its proper Leica lens, I dunno, I saw it. Haven’t looked on a larger screen yet but the 3D was there.

I can’t afford most Leica glass so wondering where the Sigma ART lenses will get me.