Lens roadmap in terms of image quality?

[odot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey there, since there are so many lenses and exceptions to the rule, i wondered if there is somewhat of a roadmap on how to determine, which are the "best" lenses? For me personally, its the overall look which makes good image quality and then sharpness, which some like to solely consider. I have already read a few posts and the APO Summicrons are somewhat considered the best? Whats after that? This is really all too confusing for me. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by odot

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

The way you put it, a completely impossible question to answer. There are so many uses and requirements, one lens is more suited to one, another in another way. In fact, all Leica lenses are "the best"in their category and intended use. Firstnyou have to determine what your equirements are and what you are goning to use the lens for, then you can start looking for answers. 

For instance - the Apo-Summicron you mention. It may be the top of the line M 50 mm lens - but it is not intended for use which requires longer or shorter focal lengths. It is certainly not better  than the Noctilux (which of the Noctiluxes,? that depends) for pronounced shallow DOF photography and is certainly too clinical for glamour portraits. OTOH for Fine Art and large prints from high-res sensors you cannot do better. Etc.

[Guest]

You could make a case for any leica,voigtlander,minolta,zeiss and konica lens made since WW2 if you like the look of the images they produce and most of them will be quite sharp,sharp or very sharp lenses.

I have a 9cm leitz f4 elmar from 1955 ,cheap but well made and sharp.

[odot]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The way you put it, a completely impossible question to answer. There are so many uses and requirements, one lens is more suited to one, another in another way. In fact, all Leica lenses are "the best"in their category and intended use. Firstnyou have to determine what your equirements are and what you are goning to use the lens for, then you can start looking for answers. 

For instance - the Apo-Summicron you mention. It may be the top of the line M 50 mm lens - but it is not intended for use which requires longer or shorter focal lengths. It is certainly not better  than the Noctilux (which of the Noctiluxes,? that depends) for pronounced shallow DOF photography and is certainly too clinical for glamour portraits. OTOH for Fine Art and large prints from high-res sensors you cannot do better. Etc.

I'm in the market for a 35mm focal length and as stated earlier, sharpness is nice but the overall look is more important to me. I will be shooting with an M6 for now and will look forward to use it with the newer digital lenses.

[jaapv]

What use? What subjects? What style?  There are no specific "digital" lenses. 

[odot]

24 minutes ago, jaapv said:

What use? What subjects? What style?  There are no specific "digital" lenses. 

Depending on the sensor size and MP, many older lenses cannot transform its full potential visually. This is why many other brands who offer full frame sensors have designed lenses which are more suitable for full frame. Hope this makes more sense now. I will be shooting people and street/landscapes mostly

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry that is nonsense. A sensor- lens imaging system is not a weakest link situation. A better sensor will improve any lens. A better lens will improve any sensor. The 135 film format is identical to full frame, so that is no argument. Leica sensors and cameras are designed to handle the shallow incidence angle of legacy non-telecentric wide angles so that is no argument either. Retro compatibility is a high priority with Leica. 
People, street and landscape? Almost any 35 will do. I would prefer the Summicron 35 asph, for its rendering in street and people, the Summarit 35 for landscape and the Summilux 35 FLE for general use. 

[lct]

He he it's like good wines, asking for the best can only mean you can afford the most expensive stuff . More seriously if you want a sharp 35 not too expensive, choose the current Summicron 35/2 asph. More expensive and even sharper, the new Summicron 35/2 apo. For low light, the current Summilux 35/1.4 asph is a must unless you don't mind the taller size and the lower cost  of the Zeiss 35/1.4.

[jaapv]

I really like the Zeiss for its transparent rendering, but it has a bit too much viewfinder intrusion. 

[Jeff S]

Over 30 years ago I stopped in a Leica shop for the first time, having primarily shot various SLR cameras.  With the dealer’s advice, I walked out with an M6 and a 35 Summicron.  I still use a variation of the same lens, albeit on a digital M. It really doesn’t have to be that complicated or difficult. There are virtually no Leica duds, and other companies also make fine lenses these days. Pick one, use it a lot  and figure out the rest later.

Jeff

[odot]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sorry that is nonsense. A sensor- lens imaging system is not a weakest link situation. A better sensor will improve any lens. A better lens will improve any sensor. People, street and landscape? Almost any 35 will do. I would prefer the Summicron 35 asph, for its rendering in street and people, the Summarit 35 for landscape and the Summilux 35 FLE for general use. 

You don't shoot much digital, do you?   Theres plenty of examples where newer lenses outperform older lenses when shooting digital because they (older lenses) come from a time where there simply was no digital. Digital is a completely different beast alltogether and has different needs. Maybe you should read up on this in order to make a more educated guess. 

[jaapv]

I shoot more than 85% digital. Define “outperform”.  I fear that you don’ realize that there is a difference in approach between the Leica world and “other brands” Do you know what my favorite lens on a Monochrom is? A Canon Serenar 50/1.8 LTM from 1952. 
 

[odot]

12 minutes ago, lct said:

He he it's like good wines, asking for the best can only mean you can afford the most expensive stuff . More seriously if you want a sharp 35 not too expensive, choose the current Summicron 35/2 asph. More expensive and even sharper, the new Summicron 35/2 apo. For low light, the current Summilux 35/1.4 asph is a must unless you don't mind the taller size and the lower cost  of the Zeiss 35/1.4.

No apo's for me , i have no plans on selling an organ for a lens  The Summilux 1.4 is nice but nearly 500g - it might boil doen to the Cron then, we'll see. Thanks a lot!

Oh, the Zeiss, i had the Biogon F2 before, nice contrasty lens, works great when shooting bw film but i just didn't like the Zeiss look. 

Edited March 20, 2021 by odot

[jaapv]

You do realize that it is a decades old design for film?  It is a good choice, albeit not optimal for landscape. The corners ar a bit soft. It does better on APS cameras.

 

18 minutes ago, odot said:

You don't shoot much digital, do you?   Theres plenty of examples where newer lenses outperform older lenses when shooting digital because they (older lenses) come from a time where there simply was no digital. Digital is a completely different beast alltogether and has different needs. Maybe you should read up on this in order to make a more educated guess.

Please talk sense. Newer lenses may outperform older ones, that is called progress, but they will do so equally on film. There are no different laws of optics for sensors. The only case that a lens  will perform relatively better on a digital camera is when the camera applies digital corrections in hybrid lens designs. 

[Jeff S]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do you know what my favorite lens on a Monochrom is? A Canon Serenar 50/1.8 LTM from 1952. 
 

Many similarly minded folks here...

And lots of other related and popular threads for the OP, for example...

 

Jeff

[odot]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Newer lenses may outperform older ones, that is called progress, but they will do so equally on film. 

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I spend too much time reading about, trying lenses. Including Summicrons. I'm glad over all of those years photographer won over gearhead. 

To me the content defines the image quality. To get to specific content I like, I prefer small, tabbed lenses. Which happened to be RF.  

But everyone has different journey for image quality.   

[Kim Dahl]

That, of course, is a perfectly ok question to have.  Because of course he has a point.  I am also “old” Leica M uses and appreciates the older optics.  Really love my Old Leica lenses  I also understand the question and we should perhaps in some of the discussions acknowledge that lens design has gotten better at Leica as well.  (Technology and development have also caught up with Leica in certain areas and other brands are also getting “better”) There is of course a reason for these new APO designs and there was a reason why even Leica updated their 28 f2.8 and f2.0  .  That it gets complicated now is because Leica has always done the best they could and for film camera "overpreformed" many lenses.  We can look forward to that today. ☺️👍🏻 I think the short answer is that the latest designed lenses are what he is asking for.  Whether they have the look you are looking for is a completely different question.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

38 minutes ago, Kim Dahl said:

I think the short answer is that the latest designed lenses are what he is asking for

So he chooses a 25 year old design...

[pgk]

10 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

The best part about determining the criteria about lens greatness is that there is no real tangible criteria.

Indeed it is. Especially if we don't define any of the vague terms we use to describe our lens aspirations. 'Best', 'sharpness', 'rendering', 'bokeh' and all the other amorphous descriptors are used repeatedly and in innumerable posts, without any examination of their meaning or the preferences of their user. To me, 'best' refers to the lenses I like using, and whether their technical parameters meet certain goals or compete with other lenses is not important. How I use them is. I use lenses from the 1860s up to current models. All have their place. All can deliver interesting and 'worthy' images. The limitation I have is myself as well as my ability to use them appropriately.