Leitz Macro-Elmarit-R 60/2.8 for portraits?

[Shepherdphotographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 minutes ago, convexferret said:

You do realise that the RAW processer in combination with the profiles supplied has already set the contrast to what they think it should be. There is no such thing as natural contrast here. You're setting yourself an arbitrary rule for the sake of "purity" that doesn't have much logic behind it.

Yes, but however you can see the difference between an Elmarit-R 90/2.8 and a Summilux-R 80/1.4...... Aren't you agree?...... In fact you obtain very different results if you mount a not Leica lens, such as a Nikon 105/2.5 AI-s, which is another story...., for example.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Shepherdphotographer

[Shepherdphotographer]

On Sunday I will go to buy the lens from the private, an example of the first series in excellent condition! I thank all those who intervened, from the heart, without exception!

[Advertisement]

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

[Shepherdphotographer]

4 hours ago, MattiasAndersson said:

True, but all things in life are compromises… a Leica S2 ?

I've created a new topic to ask for help on choosing a Leica here, I'd like to help and everyone who has intervened so far, please! Thank you!

 

 

[Shepherdphotographer]

2 hours ago, cbass said:

This is my guess. Keep in mind that I said guess and not experience.  Most likely the 60 f/2.8 will not render in the way you want compared to the version 1 90 f/2.8.  The 60 f/2.8 is a high contrast lens even by modern standards especially when stopped down. I imagine the MTF of the version 1 90 f/2.8 is much lower contrast in comparison.

However, there is more here than the lens itself. If you are shooting film, then film has different color signatures and saturation. Velvia is different from Provia which is different from Astia. Even when you get to digital there are different color signatures per manufacturer and per body. I know people talk about Fuji colors or Sony colors, but the reality is colors vary by body even from the same manufacturer.  Fuji also has film simulations where again colors will vary. The example flickr picture you posted was from a Fuji body and due to the lower saturation, I assume he was using one of the lower saturation film simulations for that picture. This is why people say you can color grade digital in post.

Now with that said I know exactly what you are talking about because I have tested a Summicron-R 90 from 1970 against a Elmarit-R 90 Version 2 from 1984 and the Summicron-R rendered what I could best describe as saturated pastels. The Elmarit was punchier. This was the same digital body. The same film simulation, etc. These pastels are superior when it comes to people portraits especially with skin rendering.

Coatings can also impact colors and it's possible that the older lenses 1960's-1970's use different coatings that contributed to this color signature compared to the newer lenses from the 1980's or even 1990's. The problem is from my understanding Leica did not care much about coatings and video guys that adapt Leica R complain often about finding a matching set of lenses. This means that a 60 f/2.8 from the 1970s might render color completely different from one made in the 1990's. Now does it? Sadly, I have no idea. You would have to own two of them from the extreme periods of time. However, if you were to buy one to try I would aim to get a very early one from 1972 to increase your chances.

You can recognize the timbre, the personality of a lens compared to another even on digital!  The sensor does not "level" or makes everything the same: it influences, it is true, the final result, but very little and always in the same way, because it was so calibrated by the manufacturer, but the imprint of the lens used is evident and recognizable, above all to the expert eye.  So it really makes sense to talk about "purism", to choose a lens rather than another to take a shot, in fact I have the Summicron-R 90/2 both first and last series, the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8, the Summilux- R 80 / 1.4 and there is a very evident reason for different rendering, even on digital, remove from the kit a Nikon 105 / 2.5 AI-s for its crystalline rendering that I do not like, as well as a Zeiss Planar 85 / 1.4 ZF .2 which is not as determined to blur right away, as is a Summicron-R 90/2.  You need to have experience, a lot of experience, shoot a lot and have the possibility, the dedication and the conviction to understand that to get what you want with your work or passion, in this case by taking pictures, you need to have the right tools at your disposal for every shot. , just as the painter has in his equipment different brushes to draw in a different way.  I found what I have been looking for elsewhere in photography for years, wanting to paint with photos: poetry.  Shooting a lot and still shooting, comparing the results obtained, you know your tools, you get, passing the time, results closer and closer to what you had proposed, you get better, you are satisfied, you feel satisfied and you have shut out something of yours, not a sterile and metallic compulsive theory about an electronic component!  Good Light!

[Shepherdphotographer]

1 hour ago, cbass said:

this combination can at best be a huge effort in time and money or at worst futile as the combination may not exist. If you do find it, then if you get another digital camera body it may produce different output. If you are shooting digital, then you should take advantage of digital. I would recommend spending the time finding or creating a LUT that will produce the colors you are looking to achieve. Then you can apply that LUT to all your images and move on with your life and focus on taking pictures.

I'm not agree, I'm sorry.

[Shepherdphotographer]

On 10/26/2022 at 3:24 PM, hansvons said:

Contrast-wise, I find it in the 90mm Elmarit ballpark.

What does it mean? Excuse me, but my English isn't good!

[Shepherdphotographer]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/26/2022 at 3:24 PM, hansvons said:

I own all of the lenses you mentioned. I use the 50mm Summicron R for all of my B&W portraits (Delta 400), most of them shot at 2, 8 - 4, 0. But please note that these are environmental portraits. For close-ups, the 90mm Elmarit works better. The Summilux is a speciality lensI like but rarely use.

Now the fabulous 60mm Elmarit Macro. It’s a lens that renders sharp, very sharp but remains gentle to the skin. It’s character is interestingly without opinion but creamy and sharp. It renders flat images, closer to the 90mm than to the 50mm Summicron, which renders already flatter than modern 50ies do. It likes colours but don’t exaggerate them. As all other Leica R lenses, it's imagery is on the cooler side compared to modern Leica glass, but not as cool as the 50mm Summicron R. Contrast-wise, I find it in the 90mm Elmarit ballpark.
 

I‘m sure you will like it.

Would anyone be kind enough to post some portrait taken with the elmariot-R 60 / 2.8? Do you all think, do you all agree that it is sharp, but at the same time "gentle", soft with the complexion skin, exactly as the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8 does?

[Shepherdphotographer]

...... I would like the 60 / 2.8 to be the little brother of the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8. but I understand it is not so ..... If it were only a question of saturation, I would also accept it, but I do not think the speech is so simple ....... The 90 / 2.8, actually, is clear, even if, probably, less than 60 / 2.8, however, at the same time, it is very delicate with the skin, it highlights all the details, without burning anything and gives a crazy three-dimensional effect! I love it!!

[Shepherdphotographer]

In a direct comparison of a portrait set with the Summicron-R 50/2, probably the 50/2 would be more delicate and its blur softer and "smoother" than the 60mm, I guess, the same thing that occurs when comparing the Summicron-R 90/2 with the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8, but the two lenses would make the skin very differently, again as happens when comparing the 90/2 cron-R and the 90 / 2.8 Elmarit-R, more the first dreamy, the second more detailed, without being intrusive, but respectful with the skin.

[Shepherdphotographer]

Confirmation here!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dierktopp/8709455797/in/photostream/

 

[Shepherdphotographer]

Just now, cbass said:

So what is your final conclusion?

The final "supposition", not conclusion is that the 60/2.8 is the little brother of Elmarit-r 90/2.8, but sharper e more saturated, however, like the 90/2.8, it is also very delicate on the skin and very "clinical" in the portraits. At the same time its bokeh isn't soft, smooth: also bokeh of 90/2.8 isn't smooth, soft.

[Shepherdphotographer]

On 10/26/2022 at 3:24 PM, hansvons said:

It’s a lens that renders sharp, very sharp but remains gentle to the skin. It’s character is interestingly without opinion but creamy and sharp.

Hansvons was right. Thanks you, hansvons!

[Shepherdphotographer]

On 10/29/2022 at 11:26 PM, cbass said:

I think any lens you would use with soft light would satisfy what you are looking to achieve.

I'm not agree. The imprint of a lens with a personality is always evident, regardless of the light and the sensor.

[Shepherdphotographer]

However, after a short period of absence (excuse me), I returned to this discussion. I bought the lens, the Elmarit-R 60 / 2.8 and I had it replaced the bayonet with a Nikon F and it has been usable in my kit for a very short time. In excellent condition, not very good, very clean lenses, not even a scratch, perfect rings, to be enjoyed on it, lens really like new! I could only take a few test shots, nothing serious, to try to confirm my theory. I haven't had time for anything serious. Well, trying to understand its personality, my first impression from direct, personal experience is that it has a very similar performance compared to the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8, which I hoped, which I hoped. However, it is more contrasted, but not excessively, but it is less delicate and not a little: it is delicate and clinical at the same time, but the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8 can do much better. It is firmer, a little drier, a little harder, as a goal, than the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8. It seems to me more saturated than the Summicron-R 50/2, even than the second version of the 50/2 ....., but less clinical. On the other hand this is also a basic difference between the Summicron-R and the elmarit-R (which is not reduced only to the different maximum aperture of the diaphragms, as some might think ... or, at least, I don't I think so at all!). I like the colors, the yield is Leica and it shows, but I prefer those of the Summicron-R 50/2 and of the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8: all three are different, all three are beautiful, but those of the 60 / 2.8 they are the ones I prefer the least. The blur (and I expected it) is similar to that of the 90 / 2.8, but different, more nervous: much softer and more delicate than that of the 90 / 2.8 (which still has it much harder than the Summicron-R 90/2 !! ). In short, to summarize, beautiful yield, but much less delicate than the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8. I bought it exclusively for set portraits (especially elderly people), where the Elmarit-R 90 / 2.8, due to problems of available space, does not arrive (it is not uncommon the case!) And there is a risk who prefers the Summicron-R 50/2! When I am able to use it for some serious shots, I will think about it well ......, this is only the first impression, but I don't think I was too wrong .......

[Shepherdphotographer]

13 hours ago, cbass said:

So does that mean the Elmarit-R 60 did not meet your expectations?

I have to try it for some serious shoots, before I can It definitely.  For now I just got a slightly different impression from the performance I expected.

[Shepherdphotographer]

Thank you, Cbass!

[Shepherdphotographer]

13 hours ago, cbass said:

If you want to take away some fine detail, then miss focus a bit and see if you like the results better.

In this case, in reality, it would be better for me to lower the sharpness setting for this specific lens by a value. Use, facts, customized picture controls for groups of lenses (some of them are very similar, so I have combined them into groups, also because a maximum of nine can be stored in the machine body). Correcting, even slightly the focus, I would lose, in fact, the correct focus.