Review: The New Leica APO-Summicron-M 35mm F2 ASPH.

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Steven said:

The desire for character is subjective. Many of us seek old lenses. But as I said, some modern lenses have a particular non transparent look too, imo. The 35 APO is a perfect example. 

I think even without pandemic lockdown we spend far too much time on internet, this is my escape from FB for instance. Lens and cameras are tools, most of us here are men and we like our toys, we choose what we like and than as we have all this free time on our hands we participate in virtual debates about our beloved choices.

[Rick]

46 minutes ago, Steven said:

Clean means too sharp. Transparent means it doesn’t have character. Character means soul. Soul means means not clean. Wait, I’m losing track myself. 
 

some sharp lenses don’t have character, for example, the 35 Cron ASPH ( Berk) 

some sharp lenses have character. A look of there own. They’re identifiable easily. For example, the 35 M APO 

You lost me.

[jdlaing]

22 minutes ago, mmradman said:

I think even without pandemic lockdown we spend far too much time on internet, this is my escape from FB for instance. Lens and cameras are tools, most of us here are men and we like our toys, we choose what we like and than as we have all this free time on our hands we participate in virtual debates about our beloved choices.

Get a hobby.  Maybe photography.

[Rick]

37 minutes ago, mmradman said:

 

Transparent lens means neutral, unbiased, objective recording tool, it doesn’t add or take away. It keeps OOF gently blurred and it makes subject in focus as close to the reality as it is technically possible.

Why would close to perfection be without character? Are flaws really all that desirable, if so there are millions of old optics in the world, many needing cleaning and good overhaul and all capable producing images with “character”.

Totally agree.  I bet old Abbe thought his APO lenses had a new character.

I believe character means aberration.  Soul must mean something like this too.  

[Rick]

If I apply Vaseline to the front of an APO lens does it add some character to the lens?  

 

[LeicaR10]

Rick,   Yes!  r/ Mark

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, LeicaR10 said:

Rick,   Yes!  r/ Mark

The real question is, what happens when you put Vaseline on a CHICKEN!  

(See what I did there Jono?)  

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Problem with FB it is owned by unsavoury individual with dubious political agenda operating in unregulated environment.

Nothing wrong with mobile phone, it is truly Swiss Knife of personal communication.

Except half the world spend most of their lives looking at their screens rather than any normal social interaction or instead of looking where they are driving or cycling!!

[elmars]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Rick:

Totally agree.  I bet old Abbe thought his APO lenses had a new character.

I believe character means aberration.  Soul must mean something like this too.  

There is much vodoo here. In short: Some people regard new lenses as clean and new lenses as such with character. But I bet they can‘t distinguish them in a blind test. The differences are so subtle, You only can see them wide open in critical light with a critical subject. 

[evikne]

8 hours ago, Rick said:

I understand sharp.  But, what does 'clean" and "transparent" mean?

Transparent means that the lens leaves nothing of itself in the image; the subject is reproduced completely neutrally, without being colored by the lens. We use the same term in the hi-fi world: e.g. a speaker or an amplifier with a transparent sound.

But a picture will of course always be something else than reality, no matter how good the lens is. It's just a small, two-dimensional snippet of the real world. 

[adan]

7 hours ago, Rick said:

Could someone explain in certain terms what folks mean when the say, a lens is too clinical for me?

I find this term vague.  Does it mean some like the look of higher degrees of aberrations?  Does a clinical lens have a lower Abbe value?  Is clinical lens, a lens that only Ernst Abbe would like?

I know I like clinicians... I'm one.  

 

RickAbbe

 

As far as I know, the term "clinical" as regards lenses was introduced by the late Leica maven, Erwin Puts, in his review of one of the first APO/ASPH Leica lenses in the late 1990s.

I forget which one, but I believe it was either the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH or the 135mm APO-Telyt. And in comparison to the existing non-APO/ASPH Leica M lenses still in the stable at that time.

I didn't know what he meant either, since it was the first time I saw that word used in that context. But in the context of his other word-pictures of how that lens drew the world, and as a hospital technical photographer at one point in my career (Children's Memorial, Chicago, now Lurie Children's Hospital), I just took it literally:

Masked and gowned and impersonal, technical, unromantic, accurate, precise, steely, sterile, scalpel-like, laser-like, sharp-cutting, stark.

Or in metaphor piled on metaphor, in the words of Detective Sgt. Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am."

I assume that, as a clinician, your reports and records are also technical, precise, accurate, unromantic, and rather impersonal. "Just the facts," without engaging in poetic/artistic license or emotion.

And that was certainly how I (and the physicians/surgeons for whom I produced them) expected my "clinical photographs" of: pre-op injuries or defects, or organs in situ, or reproductions of x-rays, ultrasounds and CT/MRI images, to present. "Just the facts" - suitable for pre-op or treatment planning, medical records, research, publications, and lectures. The documents in the case - in the clearest possible detail.

Now it is obvious that clinical photography is but a small part of all photography, and thus there is vast room for less technical, and more emotional, photography.

Even at the hospital, I could switch gears when working for the PR and Development offices, and produce story-telling pictures full of artistic merit, emotion and romance. To "endear" the hospital and its many programs to the public - and pry open the wallets of wealthy donors.

Such pictures can often be made with "clinical" lenses - but as Steven says, using lenses with a less sterile and precise natural behavior may be both more "authentic" to the purpose, and also save processing time.

[stefanusj]

The lens is really amazing but i have a slight concern. When i turn the focus ring, i hear a few clicking sound (from 0.7mtr to Infinity). I didn't notice it the first time i try this lens in the street, because of the street noise.

Is anyone experiencing the same problem? Many thanks.

[Rick]

8 hours ago, adan said:

As far as I know, the term "clinical" as regards lenses was introduced by the late Leica maven, Erwin Puts, in his review of one of the first APO/ASPH Leica lenses in the late 1990s.

I forget which one, but I believe it was either the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH or the 135mm APO-Telyt. And in comparison to the existing non-APO/ASPH Leica M lenses still in the stable at that time.

I didn't know what he meant either, since it was the first time I saw that word used in that context. But in the context of his other word-pictures of how that lens drew the world, and as a hospital technical photographer at one point in my career (Children's Memorial, Chicago, now Lurie Children's Hospital), I just took it literally:

Masked and gowned and impersonal, technical, unromantic, accurate, precise, steely, sterile, scalpel-like, laser-like, sharp-cutting, stark.

Or in metaphor piled on metaphor, in the words of Detective Sgt. Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am."

I assume that, as a clinician, your reports and records are also technical, precise, accurate, unromantic, and rather impersonal. "Just the facts," without engaging in poetic/artistic license or emotion.

And that was certainly how I (and the physicians/surgeons for whom I produced them) expected my "clinical photographs" of: pre-op injuries or defects, or organs in situ, or reproductions of x-rays, ultrasounds and CT/MRI images, to present. "Just the facts" - suitable for pre-op or treatment planning, medical records, research, publications, and lectures. The documents in the case - in the clearest possible detail.

Now it is obvious that clinical photography is but a small part of all photography, and thus there is vast room for less technical, and more emotional, photography.

Even at the hospital, I could switch gears when working for the PR and Development offices, and produce story-telling pictures full of artistic merit, emotion and romance. To "endear" the hospital and its many programs to the public - and pry open the wallets of wealthy donors.

Such pictures can often be made with "clinical" lenses - but as Steven says, using lenses with a less sterile and precise natural behavior may be both more "authentic" to the purpose, and also save processing time.

Adan,

Does clinical also mean without character, personality and soul?  

It seems to me that the term clinical is used derogatorily.  As if, having less aberrations takes away these non-optical lens descriptive terms.  

It seems to me creating character, personality and soul, as it is written here,  is the job of the photographer, to create the character, personality and soul of the photograph... no matter which lens he chooses.  

All lenses have characteristics(aberrations and other optical affectations) that can be utilized to artistic and creative ends, of course.  I'm not sure if lenses have character, though or personalities and soul for that matter.

 

[Rick]

8 hours ago, evikne said:

Transparent means that the lens leaves nothing of itself in the image; the subject is reproduced completely neutrally, without being colored by the lens. We use the same term in the hi-fi world: e.g. a speaker or an amplifier with a transparent sound.

But a picture will of course always be something else than reality, no matter how good the lens is. It's just a small, two-dimensional snippet of the real world. 

I like this analogy.  Much like some folks like the "warm" sound of vinyl and valve amplifiers.  Not as "transparent" as newer solid state designs but, they like to hear the electronic distortion.  Eddie VanHallen searched his whole life for these sounds.  Nothing wrong with Eddie in my book.

[jonoslack]

9 hours ago, adan said:

As far as I know, the term "clinical" as regards lenses was introduced by the late Leica maven, Erwin Puts, in his review of one of the first APO/ASPH Leica lenses in the late 1990s.

I forget which one, but I believe it was either the 24mm Elmarit-M ASPH or the 135mm APO-Telyt. And in comparison to the existing non-APO/ASPH Leica M lenses still in the stable at that time.

I didn't know what he meant either, since it was the first time I saw that word used in that context. But in the context of his other word-pictures of how that lens drew the world, and as a hospital technical photographer at one point in my career (Children's Memorial, Chicago, now Lurie Children's Hospital), I just took it literally:

Masked and gowned and impersonal, technical, unromantic, accurate, precise, steely, sterile, scalpel-like, laser-like, sharp-cutting, stark.

Or in metaphor piled on metaphor, in the words of Detective Sgt. Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am."

 

I wasn't reading Erwin in those days - the first time I saw the word 'clinical' it was applied to the 75 APO Summicron, I thought it was ludicrous and meaningless then, and I do so even more now (and I'd think it just as crazy if applied to the 135 APO Telyt as well. 

I like your description of the medical photography, and it made me think of Barbara Hepworth's drawings of the operating theatre. 

30 minutes ago, Rick said:

Adan,

Does clinical also mean without character, personality and soul?  

It seems to me that the term clinical is used derogatorily.  As if, having less aberrations takes away these non-optical lens descriptive terms.  

It seems to me creating character, personality and soul, as it is written here,  is the job of the photographer, to create the character, personality and soul of the photograph... no matter which lens he chooses.  

All lenses have characteristics(aberrations and other optical affectations) that can be utilized to artistic and creative ends, of course.  I'm not sure if lenses have character, though or personalities and soul for that matter.

 

 

Different lenses definitely do have a different look - but I agree with you that anthropomorphising one's feelings about those characteristics always ends up being pretty arbitrary (one man's 'clinical' is another man's 'creamy' it would seem!).

Clinical certainly is used derogatorily - and I absolutely agree with you that it is the photographer's job to create character, personality and soul. It still hurts me that every time anyone mentions the 75 APO someone inevitably says 'clinical' and it makes me cringe afresh - the number of portraits and still life I have with perfect detail (neither crisp, nor sharp, just detailed) and with fantastic creamy bokeh - front and back.

But I do think that all the Leica APO lenses (including the SL lenses) have a look in common - I've been shooting with all 5 of the M APO lenses (90,135,75,50 and 35) side by side recently (I think there's an article coming on). Peter Karbe would say this is because of the wonderful microcontrast possible using APO glass, and the fast but gentle roll off as it goes out of focus (and the contrast decreases). 

[jonoslack]

10 minutes ago, Steven said:

A lot of people want to get away from the sharp look nowadays, because the character look is more cinematic (please don’t try to make me explain all the words I use, If you don’t understand just move on). 
 

this can be seen as well in the canon/Sony world, where diffusion filters have been hot sellers in the past years. Unlike M lenses, most canon and Sony native lenses are rather sharp and transparent. People mount 1/4 diffusion filters on them to get more glow around the highlights, and a softer look in general. Sharpness is assimilated to digital, and people don’t want a digital look, most of the time. 

As above Steven - I think there is a real distinction between 'sharp' (Noctilux 1.2, FLE)  and 'detailed' (35 APO - both SL and M)

[hdmesa]

38 minutes ago, Rick said:

Adan,

Does clinical also mean without character, personality and soul?  

It seems to me that the term clinical is used derogatorily.  As if, having less aberrations takes away these non-optical lens descriptive terms.  

It seems to me creating character, personality and soul, as it is written here,  is the job of the photographer, to create the character, personality and soul of the photograph... no matter which lens he chooses.  

All lenses have characteristics(aberrations and other optical affectations) that can be utilized to artistic and creative ends, of course.  I'm not sure if lenses have character, though or personalities and soul for that matter.

 

Cartoon idea: A photographer asking their optometrist for a prescription with more character 😆 

There was a time when different schools of art derided each other. Photography is rather new compared to other art forms, and we still have a lot of maturing to do.

[wlaidlaw]

My pet hate is when people describe things like a lens rendition as "Organic". As far as I am concerned, this adjective only applies to chemical compounds containing carbon or vegetables/fruit/grain grown with poo but without insecticide. 

Wilson

[hdmesa]

2 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

My pet hate is when people describe things like a lens rendition as "Organic". As far as I am concerned, this adjective only applies to chemical compounds containing carbon or vegetables/fruit/grain grown with poo but without insecticide. 

Wilson

I'm going to start describing my favorite lenses as having "orgasmic" renderings. Let's see someone try and argue with that 🤣

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Rick]

18 minutes ago, Steven said:

A lot of people want to get away from the sharp look nowadays, because the character look is more cinematic (please don’t try to make me explain all the words I use, If you don’t understand just move on). 
 

this can be seen as well in the canon/Sony world, where diffusion filters have been hot sellers in the past years. Unlike M lenses, most canon and Sony native lenses are rather sharp and transparent. People mount 1/4 diffusion filters on them to get more glow around the highlights, and a softer look in general. Sharpness is assimilated to digital, and people don’t want a digital look, most of the time. 

Ok, I'll "move on"... no problem.  Done.

But, conversely please don't use words you you can't or won't explain on a perfectly civil forum conversation that is about... explaining what these terms mean.  Just move on yourself.