Most 'Leica like' lens?

[Jack_Flesher]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well Jack you just gotta get your skills up and wammo it will be all there for your picking. Then again manyon this forum would agree with you after all it's a Leica forum not a Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc, others are more practical in their views,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, in the end it is what one wants to believe that goes a long way with infuencing the stance............ here it will always be that Leica is so sooooo different and better.............................. I have no desire to change your fantasy

 

Well, assuming I understand the points you're trying to make in the first place:

 

1) You could be right, maybe my PS skills suck... Which of course means I should tell my clients to stop paying me good money to teach it to them...

 

2) You could also be right about this being a Leica forum -- but then as far as concerns ME, I own more Canon gear than I do Leica gear, and still shoot a lot with it too. AND I like it a lot, so maybe not...

 

3) As for wanting to believe, maybe. But that wouldn't jive with why I'll off a piece of equipment in a nano-second for something different if I find it does a better job.

 

4) And perhaps it is all just a fantasy for me... Odd thing about that one is too many other shooters -- good shooters -- I know feel the same way I do about the Leica look. So we must all be sharing that same fantasy... I will also point out, I use all older Leica lenses FOR their specific traits, and none of the latest and greatest -- which prolly shoots down #3 some more too ()

 

Soooooooooosorry.............................. I just can't buy any of those arguments................

 

Cheers,

[leicapfile]

Leica glow? Like Sean I don't think there is one, but they, at least up to the modern Leica lenses, certainly had a different 'look'.

 

And what rigorus scientific tests ala Puts and Reid did I employ? The 'Hormone' test of course!

 

You see, back in the late 50's I was entrusted to run the old B&W Pako film machine at Pfile's Photo Service, the family business. During each run, the 135 film was always loaded last, as we had to chamois the 135s as they came out in the light before they hit the infrared heating lamps.

 

Over time, I began to notice two things that caused more than average attention to the film. The first was that every once in awhile, there passed some VERY interesting images for a young teenaged male. These were set aside for a little contact and enlarging after all the film was processed.

 

Secondly, some of the 135 films had what could only be described as a different 'look'. In reality, it was simply one of contrast and sharpness differences that separated them.

 

I can recall asking my Dad what was happening here (about the sharpness and contrast of course). His reply was '....they were probably shot with a Leica'.

 

I saved for a few months and promptly purchased a IIIf BD and 50mm ridgid Summicron LTM we had taken in on trade at our retail store. $140 and I was making 85 cents an hour at the time, but Dad was right.

 

Jerry

[Advertisement]

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

[DaveSee]

Most of you guys are making stuff for the monitor or the be printed by a inkjet/electronic device..... those two determine the final appearance, Photoshop/Aperture etc plays a huge role in determining that. The look of a lens can be emulated

Tri-X, Kodakchrome or Agfa Scala Rodinal look . ......... for that you will have to go back to the darkroom as Vic has pointed out on may occassion

For me I have a digital end result....... on paper or the screen............. no I have no wish to shove liquid chemicals/Rodinal into my hard drive and most would agree with me on that point

OK, I'll agree... but could you emulate the backfocus for us please? Urm, sorry, maybe the frontfocus? Oh, drats! I mean the, you know/can see the subject I meant in focus, with touch more warmth in the highs, and a sorta bluegreen cast in the shadow... oh, sorry, you haven't got that plugin? What? Not enough RAM?

 

Please, consider the source, the rest is hearsay... or a hairshirt:) Follow closely!

 

ta+rgds,

Dave

[Guest stnami]

..... so you really are a believer Jack

 

why would I want to emulate backfocus? wierd !!!

[DaveSee]

Most of you guys are making stuff for the monitor or the be printed by a inkjet/electronic device.....[snipped]

The look of a lens can be emulated

[snipped]t

On topic, and in focus: you may be able to massage the bits in post, but the data you begin this slight of hand is key... if the bird is dead before your ruse, the best you can do is pitch it in the air... it still won't fly. Backfocus is weird, considering that it's simply out of focus; however, no post processing may change the point of focus, nor the bits in between... it's not that captured, but what willed seen, seen.

 

ta+rgds,

Dave

 

PS-no living creatures were harmed in the making of this post!

[carstenw]

50 PRE-Asph Lux -- and more specifically, the very last version with the built-in hood. (PS: And they are selling at relative bargain prices on eBay right now -- usually between $1100 and $1500 US).

 

I thought that all versions from '62 to '04 were identical? The only change mentioned anywhere is the new near-limit of 0,70m, which didn't require a redesign, as I understand, just a new body. Apparently the '62 change was slip-streamed into production and was not really ubiquitous until about '66, but there should still be only one version from '66-'04. The '60-'61 was different, although it looked the same as the later ones, but not the most recent version with the built-in hood (still pre-Asph).

 

50 Cron Pre-Asph, almost any version after the collapsables, though the last collapsable with the improved blue coating (and not the one radio-active internal glass elements which is usually yellow-ish) can be quite good too. The DR, which won't mount on an M8, is the sharpest camera lens of any description I ever tested for center resolution, period. Note that 50 Crons are generally too sharp across the field and a bit too high contrast to render that classic 3-D look -- IOW they're too good ;

 

Erm, there is no 50 Cron Asph, just a study. I have the DR 50, which mounts on the M8 and will focus from the near limit to about 3m. It has a really nice look and great colour. I wish I could use it throughout the range. It isn't as sharp as the ASPH lenses though, when they are all stopped down. I am pretty sure about that, although I could run a test if you don't believe me. The '69-'79 50 Cron is meant to be a bit softer but still very good, so if the new one is too sharp, the earlier one might be worth a look. If that is still too sharp, the '56-'68 version (the DR is one of these) is a bit softer still stopped down, although possibly a bit sharper wide open.

 

First f1 Noctilux, 58 filter size version -- best bokeh of the Noct's, (but no Noct is as sharp as the 50 Pre- Lux from f1.4 and up -- and I have tested every version...);

 

I thought they were all optically identical?

 

It may well be that there is something missing in the literature, but on the other hand, personal experience with one or a few copies can be misleading too, since there are variations in all dimensions between lenses. I wonder if we will ever have an authoritative description of the differences.

[vic vic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

carsten......... besides the close focus on more recent models, there is also differance in lens coating and preperation.... leading to flaring improvement.... not as good as new aph flareing resistance but very close......

anyway........ this lens is one of the bests - full of character when u go f4 and open it more, i think over all, better general/standard lens than noctilux for slightly different look than the 50asph super lens (the best lens).....

 

about leica glow...... part of it is a big legend feeded on the interent like almost everrything on the interent.... i saw many fantastic "glow" non-leica lenses...... but those are not part of the leica non-sense cult......

 

 

 

laki......

- i have no problems with jack - i have never talked to hom, met him etc.... how i can have problems with him?........ he just seems to me very nice representative of leica non-sense tech-toy-boys small talkers...... on the internet it seems so at least.........

- i have never said that it is not important what photographer uses......... u heard it from me?

- i do not encourage people to use pinhole or holga instead of leica ......... when and how u get to that ???? and also i do not incourage them to use cooke lens just because it makes "soft focus".........

- do not worry about my communication abilities ) realy no needs to worry about it.... and " ???????????? ........................... " is not art ......... it is joke and has its functionality ....... )

 

re-read my post ...... the previous one .... not the biggining of this one when i talk about lenes........

[rosuna]

Zeiss 50mm f1.5 Sonnar?

[Peter Branch]

It is as well to remember that the "Leica Glow" of which people fondly speak had as much, if not more, to do with film and the enlarging or projection lenses used at that time.

 

It can seem as if Leica have spent the last 40+ years wasting their time working to minimise and preferably eliminate the optical defects which caused this hard to define "Glow".

 

If some variation on "soft focus" is regarded as desirable then any of the first-rate modern lenses can be combined with a Zeiss Softar filter. That way you can chose to have either the "Modern look" or the "Glow".

 

Older lenses, and the Noctilux, used on an M8 do give some, but not all, of the effects associated with optical aberrations and flare referred to as "Glow" but the camera's totally digital workflow eliminates the additional optical effects associated with enlargement or projection.

[carstenw]

carsten......... besides the close focus on more recent models, there is also differance in lens coating and preperation.... leading to flaring improvement.... not as good as new aph flareing resistance but very close......

anyway........ this lens is one of the bests - full of character when u go f4 and open it more, i think over all, better general/standard lens than noctilux for slightly different look than the 50asph super lens (the best lens).....

 

So if I want to try the famous pre-Asph 50 Lux, it should be the version from between '98 and '04, because it has improved coating? How disappointing

 

about leica glow...... part of it is a big legend feeded on the interent like almost everrything on the interent.... i saw many fantastic "glow" non-leica lenses...... but those are not part of the leica non-sense cult......

 

Well... having seen the "Leica glow" in some of my photos (mostly from the 5D with 80 Lux, sadly), I know that it exists. I think it is often exaggerated though. Not every Leica lens has it, by far, and few current lenses have it. The Noctilux has lots still, the 28 Cron wide open sometimes has it, the 75 Lux and 50 Lux Asph have some, the 35 Lux Asph has some, but not like the old lenses. I do like the effect, but I don't want it in every picture.

[vic vic]

hahah man...... buy what ever u want... but if u want slightly less flaring with the great character of this lens..... ya.... the recent ones ....

by the way........ i also love the summaritt lens ..... the super flray one )

 

im also not sure what people refer to when they say "leica glow" ...... anyway..... most of the time they show some bad processing and interent talks.... so i dont take it seriously......

i just know that some of the lenses has a very amuzing way of recording the light.... each one of them with its character...... and again.. i dont mean only to old lenses or only to leicas.... for exmple, the most recent 80planar medium like on rolleiflex is amuzing the way it records the light........old voigtlander heliar 105 is masterpiece probably..... on large format there are even more choices actually, especially because the film is large and the quality is very high and even the old and unique lenses can be used almost side by side with modern top ones.......

"leica glow" - or i would say lens chracteristic in light recording - the aesthetic variables not the tech/resolution etc...... it is more a question of the SUBSTANCE it gives to the light and the objects that reflect the light vissibly strongly....... it is not just bright tone..... it has some substance - light shines as though it is a real light from the scene u photographed ...........

if u want to see it the best - darkroom of course.......

not because of manipulating or not manipulating..... but simply becasue of the way that the negative/possitive is reproduced with "light transmision" in the darkoom during the printing.....

[Jack_Flesher]

I thought that all versions from '62 to '04 were identical?

 

Coatings changed throughout the versions and even within certain versions. The last version has stronger contrast, though still not nearly as harsh as an Asph's. The other reason to recommend the last one is it focuses to 0.7m, while the earlier ones were 1m...

 

Erm, there is no 50 Cron Asph, just a study.

 

Yet... I put that there for posterity

 

I have the DR 50, which mounts on the M8 and will focus from the near limit to about 3m. It has a really nice look and great colour. I wish I could use it throughout the range. It isn't as sharp as the ASPH lenses though, when they are all stopped down. I am pretty sure about that, although I could run a test if you don't believe me.

 

That's what I meant, it won't go into macro mode. The one I tested was using a film M and it made over 120 lpmm in the center, which was the limit of my film at the time. (FWIW, Pop Photo tested that lens in the late 60's on an optical comparitor -- which uses an aerial image of a resolution target, so no film to alter the numbers -- and theirs made over 200 lpmm...) Regardless, 120 lpmm is far beyond what the M8's sensor can record, so to "prove" it to me, you'll need to get a film M and load it up with some tech pan (if you can find some) and process it in accufine (if they even still make it) and compare the negs directly to the Asphs under a microscope, then figure out how to display accurate images of those results on the web.

 

I thought they were all optically identical?

 

Again there are coating differences and that may have accounted for the better bokeh in E58. But in the case of the E58, I understand it also used a specific type glass for a few internal elements that was "replaced" by something else with the same refractive index (or a pair that netted the same refractive index) in the later versions. So while not a change in the optical forumula per se, it was a change in glass composition.

 

I wonder if we will ever have an authoritative description of the differences.

 

Doubtful. Leica has never been forthcoming about internal changes, even making internal changes WITHOUT changing the product number. To wit, I had an R19 lens that needed repair to the rear element group. I sent it to NJ, who informed me after three weeks they sent it to Solms. They said there were no less than SEVEN different rear element group designs for that lens, and all carried the same part number! It had to go to Solms, where an "experienced" tech could look at the group and choose the correct parts to repair it (which they did). Seriously, that is a true story! It surprised me at the time, but it also explained a lot...

 

Cheers,

[leitz_not_leica]

35/2 ver. 1, 21/3.4, 50/1.4 pre-asph, Nikon 50/1.4, 90/2.8 fat TE, IME, yes. I still have these lenses.

 

Noct' no, 75/1.4 no, 28/2.8 ver. 1/3 no, 40/1.4 CV no, 135/4 TE no, 40/2 CLE no, 90/2.8 thin no, 50/2 DR no, 50/2 all versions no, 90/2 no, IME. Of all these, I have only kept the CV40 because it's so compact.

[sean_reid]

 

And what rigorus scientific tests ala Puts and Reid did I employ?

 

Jerry

 

Puts and Reid approach things very differently. <G>

 

As to the rest...

 

I think that software can and often does play a large role in the look of a final digital print, for sure.That said, I still don't think that one can consistently emulate the look of a given lens using software. There are a lot of reasons for this but the nature of a negative (even a digital negative) still matters. To begin with, information lost in the highlights (to overexposure) or in the shadows (to the noise floor) cannot be regained. If it's not there in the RAW file (or film negative) it just isn't there. One can tap into the information in that RAW file using various software processes but it still has to be there if its going to be tapped. But, of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

When Garry Winogrand's Canon 28 flared so wonderfully in that beautiful picture of a young woman waving from an NYC parade float, a combination of things combined to make a very specific drawing on that piece of film. The light, subject, lens qualities (all of them), Winogrand's choices, etc. all created a layered, symbiotic, physical/visual series of events that could not be mimicked in post production. Artists are -- sometimes-- doing wonderful things with Photoshop, et. al. but no one is doing that.

 

An Aside: A friend of mine was once asked if he could Photoshop away a tree branch to reveal the (completely hidden) face of a person standing behind it. People expect real magic from software. There can be magic but not conjuring.

 

There isn't any one look that comes from Leica lenses (despite many myths to the contrary) but specific lenses (Leica and others) do indeed have specific looks and sometimes families of lenses (same era, same core design, maybe same manufacturer) have family resemblances.

 

Lenses do matter. But...there's no such thing as a best lens (for all photographers) and there are no rules about how any given lens must draw. And, yes, Van Gogh did have specific preferences in paper, brushes, paint, charcoal, etc. His letters to his brother Theo, who supported him, are often full of request for money to buy very specific brands and types of this and that. So, photography is not about the lens or the camera but they play a role - often an important one.

 

The "glow" that people often refer to, by the way, is often related to a certain kind of veiling flare that many modern lens designs have sought to abolish, for better or worse. And there's not just one kind of glow, etc. ad nauseum...

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[rsh]

Sean:

 

Well put. The truth is that there is no bad Leitz/Leica lens. Choice of lens is personal taste or one's ability or inability to spend heavilly.

 

Richard

[lct]

OK guys but we all know that the pictures we take with lenses from the sixties or the eightees have not the same look as those we get with aspheric's don't we.

There are obviously differences and if someone asks which current lenses may recall the fingerprint of those oldies i guess we're able to respond if we use both no?

[j. borger]

OK guys but we all know that the pictures we take with lenses from the sixties or the eightees have not the same look as those we get with aspheric's don't we.

There are obviously differences and if someone asks which current lenses may recall the fingerprint of those oldies i guess we're able to respond if we use both no?

 

Well said ...... and very true!

[MP3]

Mostly agree with Sean and LCT, it is 'largely' a matter of personal taste.

 

Having said that, I got an excited suggestion. Well before we can agree what is the 'leica look', 'leica fingerprint', we can never come up with some consent on this topic.

 

As it is also very diffcult to JUST put in words to describe what is that look, shall we starting posting pics from 'the most Leica like lens' at this thread and add our personal words why we think so =)

[earleygallery]

5cm f2 Summar, 5cm f3.5 Elmar both definately show a classic 'Leica' look.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[sean_reid]

OK guys but we all know that the pictures we take with lenses from the sixties or the eightees have not the same look as those we get with aspheric's don't we.

There are obviously differences...

 

Yes, I made a similar comment above.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean