Jump to content

The 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH image thread


evikne

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Steven said:

I have started using RNI profiles recently too, and I'm very happy with them. But I only like them on Leica files. I think they don't play as well with other systems. 

Which ones are your favourites? And which one did you use on the photo of the red head girl holding your M6? I use the Agfa Optima 200 a lot. Looks very nice as a one click solution. 

I think that my photos are also almost undistinguishable from film, to a stranger's eye, when I go for that look. But the truth it, it's so different. I know it. And you know it too. Nothing will replicate film.

I'm glad we are using the same package, as I've really liked your edits you have posted too .  Generally speaking I'm not certain the stocks 'look' exactly like what they are emulating , it's more a case of finding one that you like on the particular image or conditions the shot was taken in - do you find that ? 

But my faves and most-used are Agfa Optima 200 (as you mention is a gem especially for beach/sun) ,  Kodak E 200, Fuji Pro 160ns Warm, Kodachrome Generic, Tri-X 200.  The Kodak Gold ones get used regularly (especially as I like gold film stock) but sometimes find they turn everything too greeny-blue and looks quite fake .  I do use the Portra ones often but find I have to scroll through and try all of them and sometimes are left out of luck.

The image you are talking about was "Porta 160 v2" - I was actually shooting Portra 400 the same day and this image sits very well side by side the film shots, which was surprising.    

I'll resist posting here as was not using 50:1.4 Pre-ASPH :D    

 

Edited by grahamc
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Steven said:

I have started using RNI profiles recently too, and I'm very happy with them. But I only like them on Leica files. I think they don't play as well with other systems. 

Which ones are your favourites? […] I use the Agfa Optima 200 a lot. Looks very nice as a one click solution. 

The Agfa Optima 200 is one of my recent favorites too. Another one is the Kodak Ultramax 400 v2 (used in post #134), with its warm whites and faded blacks. Among many others.

For B&W the Ilford Delta 400 is one of my most used profiles, because it's very versatile and looks good in many situations.

But if I just want the most natural colors, nothing beats the embedded Leica M10 color profile (but only outdoors in natural light; indoors in artificial light it's hopeless). This is the standard profile I use in my import preset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, grahamc said:

Generally speaking I'm not certain the stocks 'look' exactly like what they are emulating , it's more a case of finding one that you like on the particular image or conditions the shot was taken in - do you find that ? 

100%. I bought the pack for the Portra simulations, and they're the ones I never use the least now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't try to make my images look like any particular film stock. I just browse through different profiles until I find one I like, and that I think fits the image. I like the "matte" effect (faded blacks) that often appears on many types of film, that's why I often end up using film emulations. 

I would be just as happy if I found other types of profiles that don't try to emulate anything, but RNI is still the best I have tried so far.

Edited by evikne
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, evikne said:

I don't try to make my images look like any particular film stock. I just browse through different profiles until I find one I like, and that I think fits the image. I like the "matte" effect (faded blacks) that often appears on many types of film, that's why I often end up using film emulations. 

I would be just as happy if I found other types of profiles that don't try to emulate anything, but RNI is still the best I have tried so far.

Yes, completely agree ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, poli said:

Anybody know if the e43 summilux is 6bit codable?

Unfortunately I don’t think so. It is not on the list of discontinued lenses that can be updated:

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/0669712115/leicamdlenses

You can still manually choose "Summilux-M 1:1.4/50 11114" in the camera menu, but I don't know if this is possible with an M10-D.

Edited by evikne
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, poli said:

Thanks. Already started to doubt. And indeed with the m10-d you cannot choose a lens in the camera menu.

Very strange indeed, that you cannot manually choose a lens for the M10-D via the Fotos app or somewhere else. But I've heard of this problem before. I hope a future update will make it possible.

Edited by evikne
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Artin said:

It looks like my GAS is deflating more and more every day I can't find a copy of this lens for under 3000,00 dollars US Locally .. The prices are just going through the roof. 

If used Noctilux V4 prices stay constant (no guarantee of that of course!), probably worth going the whole hog for that instead. After all, one of the reasons for plumping for the Type 2 Summilux is that is renders similar to the Noct. Maybe better to get the real thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray, I agree to get the real thing 😉.

 

For me, each Noctilux or Summilux which I use in many units ARE the real thing.

In my use, each Leitz/Leica lens IS the real thing.

I just learn to know that when I carry Noctilux E58, I don't expect to 'have' the 'same rendering' of Summilux (E43 or E46), and vice-versa.

Each one has something else to offer, so not learning to know each IS the culprit.

 

From memory, I have  (and learned to use over years ! ) in 50mm for M : Summar, Elmar, Summarit (1.5/-M 2.5), Summicron, Summilux,

and many more in third parties lenses.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

Ray, I agree to get the real thing 😉.

 

For me, each Noctilux or Summilux which I use in many units ARE the real thing.

In my use, each Leitz/Leica lens IS the real thing.

I just learn to know that when I carry Noctilux E58, I don't expect to 'have' the 'same rendering' of Summilux (E43 or E46), and vice-versa.

Each one has something else to offer, so not learning to know each IS the culprit.

 

From memory, I have  (and learned to use over years ! ) in 50mm for M : Summar, Elmar, Summarit (1.5/-M 2.5), Summicron, Summilux,

and many more in third parties lenses.

 

Ah, made a mistake didn't I, implying a Summilux as not being the real thing, on this forum of all places.  Nevertheless, hopefully the point was made in relation to the current respective values of the lenses.  

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...