Jump to content

Most 'Leica like' lens?


leffe

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Obviously this is somewhat subjective. Some people believe the classic look from the very early days is the ticket, while others favour the Mandler era or the newest, high contrast look we seem from lenses like the 2/75 ASPH.

 

 

But I think we need to consider this in historical terms.

 

The golden age of photojournalism spanned from the 1930's to the 1960's. It's probably fair to say that until the arrival of Nikon, more people saw pictures in publications that had been taken with Leica glass, than any other brand. Leica dominated the professional news and pro market, in terms of 35mm cameras. Obviously there were the Speed Graphics and Rolleiflex, with some Contax thrown in for good measure, but once 135 became accepted by the magazines it was predominantly Leica.

 

Therefore between the early 1930's and 1945, countless published pictures were probably taken with the 3.5/50 Elmar (or 2/50 Summitar). If you know what to look for, the Elmar has a recognizable fingerprint and once you connect it to the name Leica, it becomes the Leica look.

 

After the war it gets more complicated. Wide angle lenses come into their own and now Nikon and other brands become a factor.

 

I would say that during the 1950's and into early 1960's the 50mm still dominated the field and many shooters upgraded to the 2/50 Summicron collapsible. Again, a lens with a distinct signature. A large percentage of pictures that we recognize from this period were probably taken with this combination.

 

Once we reach the Vietnam period it gets messy. Now the 35mm lens has gone mainstream and Nikon is in the game (2/50 H.C. 2.5/105, 1.8/85H.C. etc.).

 

After that Leica was pushed out of the mainstream, as everyone went SLR and Japanese.

 

So. looking back I would have to conclude that the traditional 'Leica look' is determined by the largest and most widely seen body of work that was produced by Leica shooters. And that would be the period between the early 1930's and mid 1960's.

 

That means predominatly single coated 50mm lenses of medium contrast, that were sold in large quantities and were used to produce a large volume of widely seen images.

 

So that would mean the 3.5/50 Elmar, 2/50 Summitar, 2/50 Summicron collapsible, the 50 DR/Rigid and probably 8 element 2/35 Summicron.

 

I think that many lenses of the Mandler period also fall in this category. Although they delivered higher performance, they still retained a lot of characteristics of the older lenses.

 

I also believe we are entering a new era and the Leica look is changing.

 

The two factors are:

 

a) The latest ASPH lenses have a very distinct signature. Extreme sharpness at any stop, very high contrast, broad tonality and a very three dimensional look.

 

B) Leica users are among the last group shooting film. That alone sets their work apart in terms of a look, from everything else that is being produced digitally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thrid,

 

That's an interesting perspective. I agree, as you know from my posts above, with this comment you made:

 

"Obviously this is somewhat subjective. Some people believe the classic look from the very early days is the ticket, while others favour the Mandler era or the newest, high contrast look we seem from lenses like the 2/75 ASPH."

 

One influence that comes into play is whether one is looking primarily at photojournalism or art photography. If the latter, some people's sense of a "Leica look" might be heavily influenced by the work of Frank, Winogrand, Levitt, Lyons, Koudelka, Friedlander, Eggleston, etc. Some of that work began, or has been at its most definitive, well after 1960. And, of course, many of these photographers are using older lenses that are not always contemporary with the dates of their work.

 

So, there really isn't one answer to this. If one asks about lenses that create "The Leica Look" we might want to ask him or her just what defines that look in his or her mind. It might be useful to refer to specific pictures by specific photographers to get a sense of what the individual has in mind. Often, I think, people are conflating various kinds of lens drawings and imagining that they all are made (together) by a certain group of magic lenses. When, in fact and for example, the "three dimensionality" and "glow" (to the extent that either exist) may well belong to very different kinds of lenses.

 

As for the new era, I agree but I think the lenses that are defining that have actually been around for awhile now. In fact, Zeiss is sometimes taking that new look a step further than Leica has (for better or worse).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously this is somewhat subjective. Some people believe the classic look from the very early days is the ticket, while others favour the Mandler era or the newest, high contrast look we seem from lenses like the 2/75 ASPH.

 

Precisely why I led off my (much too lengthy) response with a list of what I felt were the classic Leica traits were... And as can be seen, my preferences are definitely skewed toward the Mandler era designs.... Mandler was a genius :)

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One influence that comes into play is whether one is looking primarily at photojournalism or art photography. If the latter, some people's sense of a "Leica look" might be heavily influenced by the work of Frank, Winogrand, Levitt, Lyons, Koudelka, Friedlander, Eggleston, etc. Some of that work began, or has been at its most definitive, well after 1960. And, of course, many of these photographers are using older lenses that are not always contemporary with the dates of their work.

 

So, there really isn't one answer to this. If one asks about lenses that create "The Leica Look" we might want to ask him or her just what defines that look in his or her mind. It might be useful to refer to specific pictures by specific photographers to get a sense of what the individual has in mind.

 

I think a lot of people's conception of the 'Leica glow' is formed by the work of specific photographers. HCB is probably the main culprit, because he so revered in the Leica community and worked with a very limited set of gear. The fingerprint of this work is also instantly recognizable.

 

Early on HCB shot with an Elmar, then for a few short years with a Zeiss Sonnar and from '54 to the end primarily with a collapsible Summicron. All of these lenses are uncoated or single coated. 777 was a popular developer at Magnum and LIFE and it imparts a serious amount of glow to the midrange, while having a compensating effect on the highlights. HCB also demanded that his prints were of moderate or low contrast. Apart from his composition, the 'glow' and long tonal scale are the signature look of his work and I think that's what a lot of people are referring to, when they talk about the Leica glow.

 

You could also add Dr. Paul Wolff to that list. His most famous work was pre-war, all Leica and he used a two bath developer, which is soft working and certainly helps produce the glow. His prints are of moderate contrast and very romantic. Lots and lots of glow.

 

Based on that you could draw a few conclusions.

 

The 3.5/50 Elmar and 2/50 Summicron collapsible are probably the main suspects, in the Leica line up. Again, I think that a lot of Mandler era lenses would also fall into this category, as they retain a lot of the classic characteristics of early Leica glass, while offering much higher performance.

 

It's not just one lens, but a time period and specific photographers that are at the basis of what people call the Leica glow.

 

And in light of that you could say that several single coated lenses of that period produce what is termed the Leica glow. I think it's more a reference to a certain period in optical design, than to any lens in particular. Heck I have shot non- Leica lenses from that period (think 1.5/50 Sonnar) that produce results that have more of what would be termed the Leica look or glow, than pictures made with actual Leica lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which of the lenses in the actual Leica portfolio is the most Leica like one? Glow et cetera...

 

The 35-70mm f2.8 has the distinct Leica look to it. Not only is it sharp, but it has great colour and nice bokeh.

 

In a longer length, the 180mm APO Summicron also has the great combination of colour, sharpness and bokeh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 35-70mm f2.8 has the distinct Leica look to it. Not only is it sharp, but it has great colour and nice bokeh.

 

In a longer length, the 180mm APO Summicron also has the great combination of colour, sharpness and bokeh.

 

 

Welcome back Robert!

 

The reason the thread is predominated by M glass is the original post began in the M8 section -- ostensibly the OP wanted to know which lenses maintained the classic look on the M8, but for whatever reason the moderators felt it necessary to move it here.

 

Cheers,

Link to post
Share on other sites

what was the 'Mandler' era - which lenses did he design?

 

Mandler was the designer which worked in the Leica Canada plant and designed most of the Leica glass from the 1950's to the mid 1980's.. The f1 Noctilux was one of his designs, along with the 80mm, 75mm, and 35mm ® Summiluxes.

 

Erwin Puts posted a short biography of him at the link below.

 

(8) Dr. Walter Mandler died on april 21, 2005 | Photography and image capture: the Leica technique and philosophy by Erwin Puts | Erwin Puts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome back Robert!

 

The reason the thread is predominated by M glass is the original post began in the M8 section -- ostensibly the OP wanted to know which lenses maintained the classic look on the M8, but for whatever reason the moderators felt it necessary to move it here.

 

Cheers,

 

 

If it is M lenses they are after, I have a much more modest list. The 35mm Summicron ASPH is probably my favorite lens, followed by the 50mm Summicron. The 50mm Summicron probably has the more calssic Leica look, with sharp in focus areas awith smooth transitions and tones and good bokeh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the most 'Leica like lens' is the one you use to take most of your best images with. You'll look back at those moments without worrying about sharpness, distortion, CA, flare, micro/macro contrast/details and say "Yep, that one is 'my' most 'Leica like' lens".

 

At least, it works for me, as it probably did for HCB and GW, I guess......

 

For me, it is the 35/1.4 Aspherical, first edition, which I once owned and took a lot of wonderful images with. The same can be said about portraits I shot with the Noctilux......and the next lens is......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest guy_mancuso
Mandler was the designer which worked in the Leica Canada plant and designed most of the Leica glass from the 1950's to the mid 1980's.. The f1 Noctilux was one of his designs, along with the 80mm, 75mm, and 35mm ® Summiluxes.

 

Erwin Puts posted a short biography of him at the link below.

 

(8) Dr. Walter Mandler died on april 21, 2005 | Photography and image capture: the Leica technique and philosophy by Erwin Puts | Erwin Puts

 

I knew I liked this Mandler gentlemen for some reason. LOL

 

I just love the fast stuff

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

As much as I love my Leica there are plenty of lenses made by other manufacturers which rival Leica lens' to the point where side by side, you wouldn't spot any such 'Leica look'.

 

The Leica look is a very strange concept to me, and I've been using Leica for some time now......Leica lenses to me are great due to the lack of distortion and flare. For example, the Nikon AIS 28/2 and 28/2.8 lenses are probably no worse than Leica's current equivalents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, heated discussion on what makes a Leica lens special. My $0.02 worth, when my son was little and the world still had Kodachrome, I got a Leica CL. Why? because it ws nice and small for carrying along with the diapers and formula and baby seat and all the other accessories.

 

I shot daily in the studio with my Nikons, Hasselblads and view cameras. When doing personal shots I used the CL and DR Summicron. The first roll of Kodachrome on my light table cut my eyes, they had a 3D feel to them, the backlit grass was not just a green patch but a rendition of each blade of grass! My Nikkors were sharp, but the ability to hold the detail from highlight to shadow was not the same. Fast forward to today, no more Kodachrome, 8x loupes? replaced by 100% blowups on 30" monitors. We pixel peep everything to death and lose sight of the overall rendering of the image. Leica glass is Leica glass, in my opinion there are very few lenses that have the same finger print across the line. There is more to an image than absolute sharpness, micro contrast and low chromatic abberations accross the image circle make for a very pleasing image.

 

Al

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever since the original 50mm Elmar of 1926, Leica standard lenses were always the sharpest. So to me, the sharpest Leica lenses are the most 'Leica-like'. Earlier lenses were very good for their time, and some of them are still very good, but optical technology does advance and what many are gloating over is really their deficiences.

 

Cartier-Bresson (etc. etc.) did use the sharpest lenses they could have, and he of all people would have adored a 50mm Summilux ASPH on his M3. All the old masters used imperfect lenses, not by choice but out of necessity.

 

Caruso would also have sounded better digitally recorded.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is no wonder that Leica lenses are very special since they have about 100 years of optical development.

 

I think that oldest lenses has most personality due "optical imperfections" like as "glow" (coma etc).

 

I sometimes couldn't tell apart new Zeiss lenses from newest Lelca ASPH design. A lot of sharpness and contrast so they both fall into the same category :) At other words, nothing striking out of those at B&W. For colors shots, it might be a bit different. But I declare that newest lenses with ASPH are least Leica like lenses, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I've been taking pictures since the 1940's. And I don't think we should imitate pictures from the 1940's – at least, I don't – because this is the early twentyfirst century. We can love them for what they are, but imitating them is barefaced nostalgia, probably the least constructive of all emotions next to hatred.

 

The old man from the Age of the IIIa

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...