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

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

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

Pictures?  

[Advertisement]

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

[hdmesa]

Just now, Rick said:

Pictures?  

LOL.

But seriously, seeing the results of APO-level lenses on high-res cameras is nothing short of mind-blowing. I remember the first shot I took a few years back with the GFX 50S and the 32-64. I zoomed into the glass on my counter that I'd photographed, and I saw a perfectly rendered thumbprint. My eyes may have teared up, and the absolutely last thing I was thinking was "clinical".

[Rick]

37 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

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. 

 

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). 

Jono.

I agree with your comments on the 75 APO Summicron.  I remember that well.  I bought one for my M8 and returned it to PopFlash because, I mistakenly was convinced on LUF that it was too clinical.  Folks said things like my wife wouldn't want me to take a portrait of her because, it is too clinical!  So, I returned it and used my 50 Summilux wide open.

Truth is, while I had it, I took some of my favorite portraits of my wife in the late afternoons, as the warm sunlight came through our kitchen window.  Wide open, from about 2-3 meters away, these photographs capture the warm light, and the fall off of focus on her face was dreamy.  The 75 APO handles color so well.  There was nothing clinical about it.  

But, I was new to Leica then and knew I didn't want a clinical lens.  I wanted the Leica glow everyone talked about.

That was 13 years ago we were younger... but, we were no spring chickens even then.  

 

[jonoslack]

45 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

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

I'm going to do that too!

[jonoslack]

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

Jono.

I agree with your comments on the 75 APO Summicron.  I remember that well.  I bought one for my M8 and returned it to PopFlash because, I mistakenly was convinced on LUF that it was too clinical.  Folks said things like my wife wouldn't want me to take a portrait of her because, it is too clinical!  So, I returned it and used my 50 Summilux wide open.

Truth is, while I had it, I took some of my favorite portraits of my wife in the late afternoons, as the warm sunlight came through our kitchen window.  Wide open, from about 2-3 meters away, these photographs capture the warm light, and the fall off of focus on her face was dreamy.  The 75 APO handles color so well.  There was nothing clinical about it.  

But, I was new to Leica then and knew I didn't want a clinical lens.  I wanted the Leica glow everyone talked about.

That was 13 years ago we were younger... but, we were no spring chickens even then.  

 

Hi Rick

I hope you have one now! Fantastic lens - mine is still a favourite.

 

[adan]

1 hour ago, Rick said:

I'm not sure if lenses have character, though or personalities and soul for that matter.

Well, there we wander into the realms of religion.

A subject generally discouraged on these forums. Although some allowances appear to be made in the case of lenses, or chosen media (film vs. digital, e.g.) or other creative opinions. There are "High Priests" or "Evangelists" in every such debate.

I think all lenses have character. It is simply that one of the many possible characters is - "clinical."

Personally, I share the idea that the only lasting character of a photograph comes from between the photographer' ears. It cannot be bought or "outsourced," no matter how much one spends at the Leica Store.

1 hour ago, jonoslack said:

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).

I don't actually like the idea of "fast but gentle roll-off" in focus - in lenses for a rangefinder camera. For a simple practical reason - a SLOW roll-off in focus is a technical plus when using a proxy focusing system like an RF, where small focus errors are easy to achieve.

It happens that an optical "flaw" that often produces character (soft bokeh, low contrast, "glow"), namely, spherical aberration, also produces a safety-net of layered focus planes. Which retain information more readably even with slightly-missed focus.

I've posted this before. Images with the 75 Summilux at f/1.4 (top) and the 75 APO-Summicron at f/2 (bottom). The Summilux retains more (literally readable) information, such was "what is the word or number before "APO," or "75 mm," or "anodized?" Even when letting in twice as much light (f/1.4 vs. f/2).

As a documentarian, I like providing people with more information. And I would submit that photographs that last for 50 or 100 years tend to do so based on their information content (check your local museum).

But even as an artist, i find the APO-Summicron blurs to be unattractive - they look like squashed bugs compared to the Summilux blurs. So I win both ways.

In any event, probably not as critical a consideration with a 35mm (back on topic)

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!

Edited May 8, 2021 by adan

[Rick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Jono,

By the way, that is part of the story of why I bought the 75 Summilux.  I was trying to stay away from that clinical aesthetic everyone was talking about.

Rick

[Rick]

Jono,

I just realized something else... My 50 APO renders much like the 75 APO.  My 50 APO has taken over for my 50 Summilux.  At f2 it renders more to my licking than the 50 at f1.4.  This is of course because of the fast fall off of the OOF.  I get wonderful late afternoon portraits with the 50 APO.

Peter Karbe said that the real test of I lens come wide open in low light.  Low contrast lighting is where the APO shines.  You can probably explain all of that much better and better quote Peter.

Rick - From the age where colors all come together.

 

[jonoslack]

18 minutes ago, adan said:

 

I've posted this before. Images with the 75 Summilux at f/1.4 (top) and the 75 APO-Summicron at f/2 (bottom). The Summilux retains more (literally readable) information, such was "what is the word or number before "APO," or "75 mm," or "anodized?" Even when letting in twice as much light (f/1.4 vs. f/2).

As a documentarian, I like providing people with more information. And I would submit that photographs that last for 50 or 100 years tend to do so based on their information content (check your local museum).

But even as an artist, i find the APO-Summicron blurs to be unattractive - they look like squashed bugs compared to the Summilux blurs. So I win both ways.

In any event, probably not as critical a consideration with a 35mm (back on topic)

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!

Hi Andy

Excellent - I haven't seen this posted before, and it's both a wonderful explainer of the differences between the 2 lenses, evidence in favour of Peter Karbe's argument for the use of APO glass, and a perfect example of the problems with religion!

Sometimes I want to be a documentarian, but in that case I stop down. . . . but either way the 75 APO gives much better detail than the 'lux

When I'm trying to be an artist I far prefer the bokeh from the APO glass (which looks creamy to me)

One thing which really irritates me is bad CA ( the 75 summilux's greatest attribute ).

I shot the 75 'lux and 75 APO side by side for about 3 years and I far far prefer the APO.

So as far as the bokeh is concerned it would appear that we are devotees of different religions . . . and I've always felt that the love of the 75 Summilux Asph is a real religion: it's hard to use, produces mediocre results and has many flaws (which can also be translated as 'Full of Character'). 

It takes all types (and isn't that good!)

[hdmesa]

31 minutes ago, adan said:

Well, there we wander into the realms of religion.

A subject generally discouraged on these forums. Although some allowances appear to be made in the case of lenses, or chosen media (film vs. digital, e.g.) or other creative opinions. There are "High Priests" or "Evangelists" in every such debate.

I think all lenses have character. It is simply that one of the many possible characters is - "clinical."

Personally, I share the idea that the only lasting character of a photograph comes from between the photographer' ears. It cannot be bought or "outsourced," no matter how much one spends at the Leica Store.

I don't actually like the idea of "fast but gentle roll-off" in focus - in lenses for a rangefinder camera. For a simple practical reason - a SLOW roll-off in focus is a technical plus when using a proxy focusing system like an RF, where small focus errors are easy to achieve.

It happens that an optical "flaw" that often produces character (soft bokeh, low contrast, "glow"), namely, spherical aberration, also produces a safety-net of layered focus planes. Which retain information more readably even with slightly-missed focus.

I've posted this before. Images with the 75 Summilux at f/1.4 (top) and the 75 APO-Summicron at f/2 (bottom). The Summilux retains more (literally readable) information, such was "what is the word or number before "APO," or "75 mm," or "anodized?" Even when letting in twice as much light (f/1.4 vs. f/2).

As a documentarian, I like providing people with more information. And I would submit that photographs that last for 50 or 100 years tend to do so based on their information content (check your local museum).

But even as an artist, i find the APO-Summicron blurs to be unattractive - they look like squashed bugs compared to the Summilux blurs. So I win both ways.

In any event, probably not as critical a consideration with a 35mm (back on topic)

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!

Yes, the APOs are critics that highlight our rangefinder focusing mistakes. But without getting into the debate about equivalency and pixel peeping (another derogatory term along with "clinical" and "chimping", etc.), I find that with high-res cameras, that safety net is quickly disappearing. Focusing errors on digital today do not seem so well-concealed to me without printing to small sizes or posting online at reduced resolution.

 

[jonoslack]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Yes, the APOs are critics that highlight our rangefinder focusing mistakes. But without getting into the debate about equivalency and pixel peeping (another derogatory term along with "clinical" and "chimping", etc.), I find that with high-res cameras, that safety net is quickly disappearing. Focusing errors on digital today do not seem so well-concealed to me without printing to small sizes or posting online at reduced resolution.

 

Well, I agree in principle, but not using the APOs because they expose focusing mistakes sounds like a call for more practice in focusing! (I realise you aren't saying that) I agree there is no safety net . . . . but I would refer back to rule 1 "if a photograph is interesting nobody cares if it's technically good, and if it's not interesting nobody cares at all" 

[hdmesa]

21 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

Well, I agree in principle, but not using the APOs because they expose focusing mistakes sounds like a call for more practice in focusing! (I realise you aren't saying that) I agree there is no safety net . . . . but I would refer back to rule 1 "if a photograph is interesting nobody cares if it's technically good, and if it's not interesting nobody cares at all" 

I agree. I was trying to discount the notion of non-APO being a way out of not achieving proper focus. Out of focus is out of focus.

As for a good capture being able overcome technical weaknesses in a photo, that's true, it can. But that depends on if you're making art or if you're working for a client. Imagine a wedding with an army of guests, all of whom are wielding iPhones with massive DOF – and you deliver even a small portion of the paid-for photos as slightly but noticeably out of focus.  (As always there are exceptions, like motion-blur for artistic effect.)

Edited May 8, 2021 by hdmesa

[jonoslack]

9 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I agree. I was trying to discount the notion of non-APO being a way out of not achieving proper focus. Out of focus is out of focus.

As for a good capture being able overcome technical weaknesses in a photo, that's true, it can. But that depends on if you're making art or if you're working for a client. Imagine a wedding with an army of guests, all of whom are wielding iPhones with massive DOF – and you deliver even a small portion of the paid-for photos as slightly but noticeably out of focus  

I quite agree - shooting non-APO is no escape!

I don't need to imagine weddings with an army of guests, I've shot lots of them (although not in the last year), but generally speaking the problem with high resolution focusing errors is completely lost when printing at A4 size for books). The last 4 weddings I've done have all been shot on Leica APO lenses, mostly wide open, and I've not had a single word of criticism on focus!

Edited May 8, 2021 by jonoslack

[Rick]

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams

 

[jonoslack]

Just now, Rick said:

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” Ansel Adams

 

But a fuzzy image of a sharp concept is just fine

[hdmesa]

15 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

I quite agree - shooting non-APO is no escape!

I don't need to imagine weddings with an army of guests, I've shot lots of them (although not in the last year), but generally speaking the problem with high resolution focusing errors is completely lost when printing at A4 size for books). The last 4 weddings I've done have all been shot on Leica APO lenses, mostly wide open, and I've not had a single word of criticism on focus!

Absolutely. The key is not to miss focus, not to depending on softer lenses to mask it. It's been about 25 years since I photographed weddings, but for a while, I did so with a pair of Fuji rangefinders in 6x7 and 6x9. Never had any issues with focus. Though if I had to do it today, I might dual-carry a rangefinder and a camera like the R5 or A1.

[jonoslack]

2 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Absolutely. The key is not to miss focus, not to depending on softer lenses to mask it. It's been about 25 years since I photographed weddings, but for a while, I did so with a pair of Fuji rangefinders in 6x7 and 6x9. Never had any issues with focus. Though if I had to do it today, I might dual-carry a rangefinder and a camera like the R5 or A1.

Well, when I shoot weddings, I use an SL2 with the 24-90 and an M10-R with various lenses, works fine

Edited May 8, 2021 by jonoslack

[hdmesa]

Just now, jonoslack said:

Well, when I shoot weddings, I use an SL2 with the 24-90 and an M10-R with various lenses, works fine

Sounds like a great combo. Going off topic here, but do you find the SL2 files a good match with the M10-R? I have been debating SL2 or SL2-S to go with my M10-R.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jonoslack]

1 minute ago, hdmesa said:

Sounds like a great combo. Going off topic here, but do you find the SL2 files a good match with the M10-R? I have been debating SL2 or SL2-S to go with my M10-R.

yes indeed, lots of people seem to prefer the SL2-S, but I like the SL2, on the other hand I do tend to compartmentalise, so I'm not alternating shots between the cameras

[Rick]

29 minutes ago, jonoslack said:

But a fuzzy image of a sharp concept is just fine

I don't do this much, but sometimes I close my right eye(distance) and use my near eye to get an idea of composition.  Sometimes, I close one eye or the other to get an idea of OOF near to clear far... or close the other eye to get the idea of clear near focus with OOF far.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Rick