Do you prefer "classic" lenses or contemporary designs?

[quietglow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Those of you mostly-film-shooters: do you tend to prefer lenses from the original era of film (or current lenses of that type of design) or "modern" lens designs (i.e. the ones that digital folks sometimes ditch for classic lenses because they're too "clinical")? 

[jakontil]

It really depends on what im shooting, for streetphoto i prefer the old lenses or even reissues line up, because its small for what it is, while doing a studio shoot or professional works, i just pick my modern asph 

[spydrxx]

Whatever suits the subject. More often for me are the classic lenses as most of my work is in B&W.

[TomB_tx]

I use both, and find differences are slight in my use. I prefer the simplicity and handling of older designs (except for Summarit 2.5 - best of both eras).

[hansvons]

On Ilford Delta 100, Portra 160, 5207 250D, you will see the difference between a modern, sharp lens like the 35mm Summicron ASPH, which was at its release the pinnacle of film 35mm lenses, and an older glass that is based on classic double Gauss design with vintage lead-based coatings. On high-speed films like Tri-X, Portra 800 or 5219 500T, an older lens might look more appropriate–if you leverage their moody quirks like flaring, a bent focal plane at f2.0 etc... But I find that even high-speed B&W benefits from a sharp lens. 

I have the Summicron mentioned above and the 35mm Nokton V2 SC because, regardless of the film I use, there are times when I want complete optical precision and times when I want a more moody interpretation. 

[a.noctilux]

I use happily (what ? asph. lens) my Tri-Elmar-M 28-35-50 which is classic/practical enough and if the results count, it's my favorite lens.

Even if I have other choices, but none is as practical as MATE.

I accept many flaws though = not a big deal.

At 28mm setting I need (sometimes for better framing, not always) an auxiliary 28mm VF.

[adan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me, weight and size (for the aperture available) are the determining factor.

I bought into Leica M 22 years ago to get away from the bloat of SLR lenses (aperture and AF actuation mechanisms) - and my back has thanked me ever since.  

Sometimes that means a Classic lens (35 Summicron or Summilux pre-ASPH, or 50mm v.3, or 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH), and sometimes it means a Contemporary lens (C/V Nokton 75mm f/1.5 or 135mm APO-Telyt).

I don't care overmuch about the imaging, unless I find it really unpleasant. If it is interesting (or mildy weaker) - I make use of it, or work around it, as needed.

I should note that, these days, my Ms are all digital. But the principle applied when I shot film Ms pre-2006, and still applies with my current 6x6 film cameras (Rollei TLR instead of Hassy SLR; Hassy SWC 38mm instead of Hassy SLR 40mm).

[BernardC]

It depends on the project. I have a set of "classic" lenses that I started accumulating in high school (they were just regular lenses then), and a set of modern lenses. What I find is that I can't mix them within the same project, for instance with prints that will be shown together.

[oldwino]

What happens when the "modern" lenses are re-creations of "classic" lenses, with better IQ?

[BernardC]

24 minutes ago, oldwino said:

What happens when the "modern" lenses are re-creations of "classic" lenses, with better IQ?

I find that the main difference is lens coatings, and flare resistance. For instance, one of my most modern-looking lenses is a ZM Planar 50. I can shoot that lens with a bright window right behind the subject and get absolutely no flare, and no light wrapping around. The same shot with a 1970s Planar has a Close Encounters alien effect, where the back-light overwhelms details like ears and hair!

That's an extreme example, and quite frankly I wouldn't shoot such a composition with an old lens. On the other hand, classic Hollywood lighting styles typically use a bare light behind the subject's head to create a halo effect. That's something that doesn't look quite the same with a modern lens.

[quietglow]

On 8/20/2023 at 1:19 PM, adan said:

For me, weight and size (for the aperture available) are the determining factor.

I bought into Leica M 22 years ago to get away from the bloat of SLR lenses (aperture and AF actuation mechanisms) - and my back has thanked me ever since.  

Sometimes that means a Classic lens (35 Summicron or Summilux pre-ASPH, or 50mm v.3, or 21 Elmarit pre-ASPH), and sometimes it means a Contemporary lens (C/V Nokton 75mm f/1.5 or 135mm APO-Telyt).

I don't care overmuch about the imaging, unless I find it really unpleasant. If it is interesting (or mildy weaker) - I make use of it, or work around it, as needed.

I should note that, these days, my Ms are all digital. But the principle applied when I shot film Ms pre-2006, and still applies with my current 6x6 film cameras (Rollei TLR instead of Hassy SLR; Hassy SWC 38mm instead of Hassy SLR 40mm).

This is a good take, and I think it's probably the closest to mine. I spend lots of time walking long distances with my cameras, and the overall size and handiness of the M system is always what has attracted me. I asked the question as I was contemplating a lens with a contemporary design, and it is indeed much than the lens it would replace. Thanks for the reminder.

Also: the SWC is one of the last remaining cameras on my "one day I'll have" list. One day!

[quietglow]

On 8/20/2023 at 4:31 AM, hansvons said:

On Ilford Delta 100, Portra 160, 5207 250D, you will see the difference between a modern, sharp lens like the 35mm Summicron ASPH

I recently bought a V5 Summicron 50 and the difference in sharpness is quite noticeable on 250d vs my old trusty Summicron collapsible. Wide open, it's easy for me to tell which lens a photo was taken with. The V5 really does lovely things with the 250d.

With HP5, on the other hand, I don't think I could reliably tell the results apart. The most obvious difference is the increased contrast with the V5, but this isn't as pronounced as the variance in sharpness. 

Nothing surprising about any of that, but I think this is the first time I have noticed a lens offering more resolution on film (in 35mm). I am looking forward to seeing how 50d, with it's even lower grain, looks with the newer Summicron.

[aesop]

       ...my most modern lens is the film-era 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH from 2004. I have little or no interest in lenses designed primarily for digital sensors. I shoot film only. Anything else gets covered by my omnipotent iPhone.😬

[costa43]

On film I don’t notice a huge difference in sharpness between my 50mm Summilux pre asph and my 50mm Voigtlander APO. Character yes but detail not so much at equivalent f stops.  It’s probably there but not enough to change the game for me. It’s far more evident on digital though to my eyes. 

[oldwino]

59 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

They still remain classic. The great example is the "modern" LLL 35/2, a re-creation, of 35 summicron v1 8-element. About 10% better of the former in IQ but all the optical quirks that make it a character lens remain.

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!

That's an excellent lens for sure. I would rather have it than an original, for pure picture making purposes. Now, for collecting, its a different story...

[sandro]

Since I only use analog Leica M cameras and the most modern Leica lenses are (way) too expensive for me, I am very happy to use older lenses. They have never disappointed me since 1996 and since I am not a professional, I guess it's less critical. When other people see my photos they never complain, and when I am not complaining either I am happy woth those lenses. Like the Summaron 2.8/35mm. the Summicron 50mm both versions II and III, and sometimes IV. The 3 elements Elmar 4/90mm for instance is anothe beautiful lens.

Lex

[Einst_Stein]

I am happy with my pre-digital Leica M lenses. enough for my shooting skill.  Leica M digital lenses take better pictures.

But the "contemporary" lenses, such as TTartisan, Voigtlander, etc., that's another story. 

[UliWer]

Well, I don't know what a "digital lens" might mean.  After the introduction of digital cameras Leica changed some of their lenses so that they could better cope with the problems caused by digital sensors and digital photography: e.g. focus shift was reduced with floating elements for the 35mm Summilux asph, though focus shift existed as well during film times, but you didn't notice it immediately as it took you some time to look at the results and you forgot about the aperture etc. They also redesigned some lenses (mainly wide angles) to avoid that light fell too flat on the sensor causing color shift etc. Though these designs existed well before "digital times".

Using "old" lenses might also have an advantage for digital sensors. They are usually less contrasty, which means they transmit less light. This may help to avoid overblown highlights which are much more critical with digital sensors.

Here an example with the 75mm Apo-Summicron asph (it's even a "pre-digital" design...)...

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!

 

....and an uncoated 1.9773mm Hektor:

There are still blown out highlights with the Hektor, though they are much reduced compared to the Apo-Summicron.

You can easily see the differences in the histogram:

Histogram for Apo-Summicron:

Histogram for Hektor:

(the indication for the f-stop is wrong in both cases - it was f/2 for the Apo-Summicron and f/1.9 for the Hektor).

Of course the difference between both lenses is enormous in my comparison and you will notice less if you compare e.g. older and newer 50mm Summicrons, though the tendency that older lenses have less light transmission and may "protect" the highlights better than newer ones remains the same. On the other hand "old" lenses aren't very good with muddy weather ...

[lct]

2 hours ago, UliWer said:

Well, I don't know what a "digital lens" might mean.  After the introduction of digital cameras Leica changed some of their lenses so that they could better cope with the problems caused by digital sensors and digital photography: e.g. focus shift was reduced with floating elements for the 35mm Summilux asph, though focus shift existed as well during film times, but you didn't notice it immediately as it took you some time to look at the results and you forgot about the aperture etc. They also redesigned some lenses (mainly wide angles) to avoid that light fell too flat on the sensor causing color shift etc. Though these designs existed well before "digital times".

Using "old" lenses might also have an advantage for digital sensors. They are usually less contrasty, which means they transmit less light. This may help to avoid overblown highlights which are much more critical with digital sensors.

Here an example with the 75mm Apo-Summicron asph (it's even a "pre-digital" design...)...

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!

 

....and an uncoated 1.9773mm Hektor:

There are still blown out highlights with the Hektor, though they are much reduced compared to the Apo-Summicron.

You can easily see the differences in the histogram:

Histogram for Apo-Summicron:

Histogram for Hektor:

(the indication for the f-stop is wrong in both cases - it was f/2 for the Apo-Summicron and f/1.9 for the Hektor).

Of course the difference between both lenses is enormous in my comparison and you will notice less if you compare e.g. older and newer 50mm Summicrons, though the tendency that older lenses have less light transmission and may "protect" the highlights better than newer ones remains the same. On the other hand "old" lenses aren't very good with muddy weather ...

+1 and old enses with less macrocontrast are easy to tweak in post. Some of them are as sharp or even sharper than current designs. A good example is the Summicron 50/2 DR from the sixties i'm testing now. Just a snap on M11 below.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Leica-M11-Leica-502-DR/i-9HJLhBp/0/LsDBBsbQcBpStH7W5kmV9NV82GpbWxfxcGVNnpNpx/X4/M1201946ps-X4.jpg

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Ko.Fe.]

On 8/19/2023 at 12:45 AM, quietglow said:

Those of you mostly-film-shooters: do you tend to prefer lenses from the original era of film (or current lenses of that type of design) or "modern" lens designs (i.e. the ones that digital folks sometimes ditch for classic lenses because they're too "clinical")? 

It is not this simple. Film means bw and color at least. Lens design is optical and mechanical.

Here are some examples. 

Rigid Cron, V4 - both are sterile, lifeless on bw, yet, Rigid is interesting on color, V4 is nice.

CV 50 1.5 ASPH VM v1 one (masochists focus ring version). Totally awesome on BW. Microcontrast and such. So is CV 35 1.7 V1 LTM Ultron. Yet, mechanically are not good.

Cron collapsible, incredible on bw darkroom prints. Yet Elmar-M 50 2.8 (last version) is just as good.

FSU LTM 50, 35, 28 are fine on BW and so-so with color on film. They could be from anywhere between fifties and nineties made. If focus helicoid is cleaned and relubed with light lube, thier focus is just as smooth as Leitz lenses.

And the only Leica lens I decided to keep for now is Summarit-M 35 2.5.

One of the best lenses for bw darkroom prints I ever used. Of course is fine on color. And mechanics are unsurpassed by many if not most. Not a clunky ZM, not VM which have lack of smooth focusing. This lens is allowing the level of fiddling by setting focus and aperture at the time between bringing camera from the chest to the eye. No Leitz time ones could do.