Do you challenge lens character?

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, f8low said:

I wonder how often you folks compare vintages lenses side by side (same scene, focal length & f-stop) with modern ones - if you already own them - or look for such comparisons online - if you want to buy them.

When shooting TV adverts I used the latest and greatest glass for anything that needed vibrant lustre and a distinct sharpness, including packshots. Couldn't be sharp enough, and couldn't show too much dimensionality. Zeiss Master Primes were the way to go (the 15mm at f1,4 is a revelation). In M land that would be the APO lenses.

If lifestyle was the objective, flares and subtle glows were the goal besides a more flat rendering of the faces. Zeiss Super Speeds, K35s, Cooke S1 were the appropriate choice (I owned a set of Super Speeds). If I wanted a high dimensionality and super-nice flares I defaulted to the legendary Cooke 20-100 (Apocalypse Now, Stalker etc…), which I still own. In M terms that would be everything pre-ASPH.

That's why vintage lenses often sell for higher prices than their modern counterparts. A set of five K35 in good working condition is way above 100k—if you can find one.

So, I don't compare them. I use them for the intended purposes. However, I did test-shoot them to learn the differences, and they can be stark. However, as mentioned a couple of times already in this thread, stopping done somewhat eliminates the differences but also often is beside the point because a particular story needs a particular f-stop.

I own three M lenses for two M films cameras and don't plan to expand the collection:

The 35mm Summicron ASPH because it’s sharp to the corners at f2,8, doesn't glow, but renders relatively flat faces and shows still that super-nice curvature at full aperture without smeary corners. As it’s from the late 90ies it still flares nicely and can be considered as modern-vintage bastard 😉 I use it for landscapes mostly. 

The well-made 35mm Nokton 1,4 SC because it resembles everything that you would typically see in 60ies Summiluxes including the double Gauss design, only it costs an 8th of the Steel Rim reissue. It glows until f5,6, it shows a strong curvature at full aperture that flattens up until f4,0 with smeary corners depending on the f-stop and flares easily with classic orbs. Bokeh is in the same vein. F1,4 should be understood as an emergency stop. It's my go-to lens for anything moody. 

The 50mm Summicron V4 because at times I shoot portraits. This lens incorporates everything what a 50mm is about in the most timeless manner. Neither modern nor vintage-ish. A rare classic based on a 30ies double Gauss design of the highest refinement. It’s sharp enough for landscapes at f 4,0 and super gentle to the skin without getting annoyingly sharp when stopped down. And it renders faces distinctively flat resembling a 75mm flatness of a typically standard zoom without losing dimensions. 

All of that only represents my experiences with a small proportion of lenses of some vintage or modern high-end. What I will say is that vintage is not better than modern or less usuable. Vintage in itself isn't good either. Most old lenses are just that old, often bad. But the same can be said about the majority of modern glass. 

[f8low]

@hansvons Thanks a lot for spelling out your thoughts in detail! Moving picture isn't something I have personally experience with but it's super interesting to see the analogies to still photography.

For photography you're mentioning two properties new to the discussion in this thread, field curvature (flatness of focal plain) and - if I am understanding correctly - perspective distortion (for the 50mm Summicron V4?). The first is something I definitely noticed too for the Summaron 35mm, occasionally it surprises me in the corners For the latter, do you mean flatness in the sense of absence of barrel/pincushion distortion or - since you compare to the 75mm - perspective in the field of view sense, i.e. how the size of objects at different distances are translated into image size? Here I'd be curious if you are referring to differences between lenses despite identical focal length/same camera position.
 

 

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

What I will say is that vintage is not better than modern or less usuable. Vintage in itself isn't good either.

Totally, not per se better in any way! You've given great examples where one might prefer one over the other for a particular purpose.

 

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

The well-made 35mm Nokton 1,4 SC because it resembles everything that you would typically see in 60ies Summiluxes including the double Gauss design, only it costs an 8th of the Steel Rim reissue.

Maybe that's close to what remains of my original questions after reading all the replies here. You are picking this lease for a particular purpose, you know it's rendering, you could likely distinguish it from an asph. But how well could one distinguish two vintage lenses based on their rendering (assuming we narrow it down to some level of quality, say Leica glass specifically). I am not sure what compares to the Nokton but you've mentioned the steel rim (re-issue). Could they be distinguished. 

Put a bit drastically: If we take all 20ish (excuse me if I am way off) vintage 50mm Leica lenses ever made and group those together that we cannot distinguish based on rendering [say at more or less large aperture], how many groups will remain? 1? 5? 10? Of course this depends on the expertise. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by f8low

[hansvons]

20 minutes ago, f8low said:

For the latter, do you mean flatness in the sense of absence of barrel/pincushion distortion or - since you compare to the 75mm - perspective in the field of view sense, i.e. how the size of objects at different distances are translated into image size? Here I'd be curious if you are referring to differences between lenses despite identical focal length/same camera position.

I'm referring to how the lens renders faces. Despite having the same field of view, lenses render faces differently, especially when zooms are involved. Below are two images (my daughter is in a bad mood). The first was taken with the 35mm Summicron ASPH from 1998, and the second with a new 2021 35mm Color Skopar f2,4 V2. The Skopar has a modern design optimised for size and overall performance. The same can be said about the Summicron, albeit not for the size design constraints. 

The Skopar renders faces a tad more dimensional; noses get longer and faces slimmer. I prefer the Summicron. Also, the Summicron renders a bit warmer (same grading on both images) and offers more nuanced shadows but stays on the cooler side compared to modern-day Leica's 24-90 SL zoom. I find the slight tendency to cool better for skin tones. The Skopar is too much in that regard. These were shot on the SL2-S. On an M sensor or even more so on film, the results regarding vignetting and colour tint will differ (less pronounced) but not the flatness/dimensionality.

 

The Summicron:

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!

 

The Skopar:

 

42 minutes ago, f8low said:

I am not sure what compares to the Nokton but you've mentioned the steel rim (re-issue). Could they be distinguished. 

Yes, they can. But that's a marginal difference in the entire scheme of 35mm lenses. I would think that Leica 35mm Summiluxes before ASPH went only through incremental developments and can be put in one category. And in that category, the Nokton fits snugly.

In the end, it's all about how you feel. As you can see above, the differences are subtle, for an untrained eye, even not conceivable.

One can argue, OK, got it. Not important, let's move on.  But a lens that convinces you thoroughly of its intended purpose will make you go out and shoot. If you have doubts, it will make you double-think your work, leading to tainted decisions. I'd sell it and won't look back.

[f8low]

15 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I'm referring to how the lens renders faces. Despite having the same field of view, lenses render faces differently, especially when zooms are involved. Below are two images (my daughter is in a bad mood). The first was taken with the 35mm Summicron ASPH from 1998, and the second with a new 2021 35mm Color Skopar f2,4 V2. The Skopar has a modern design optimised for size and overall performance. The same can be said about the Summicron, albeit not for the size design constraints. 

The Skopar renders faces a tad more dimensional; noses get longer and faces slimmer. I prefer the Summicron. Also, the Summicron renders a bit warmer (same grading on both images) and offers more nuanced shadows but stays on the cooler side compared to modern-day Leica's 24-90 SL zoom. I find the slight tendency to cool better for skin tones. The Skopar is too much in that regard. These were shot on the SL2-S. On an M sensor or even more so on film, the results regarding vignetting and colour tint will differ (less pronounced) but not the flatness/dimensionality.

That adds a whole new dimension to the topic - thanks a lot for providing the images. I admit I have never digged into such differences in rendering.

 

 

16 minutes ago, hansvons said:

In the end, it's all about how you feel. As you can see above, the differences are subtle, for an untrained eye, even not conceivable.

One can argue, OK, got it. Not important, let's move on.  But a lens that convinces you thoroughly of its intended purpose will make you go out and shoot. If you have doubts, it will make you double-think your work, leading to tainted decisions. I'd sell it and won't look back.

Well said, agree. 

[pippy]

21 minutes ago, hansvons said:

...Below are two images......The first was taken with the 35mm Summicron ASPH from 1998, and the second with a new 2021 35mm Color Skopar f2,4 V2. The Skopar has a modern design optimised for size and overall performance. The same can be said about the Summicron, albeit not for the size design constraints...

The Skopar renders faces a tad more dimensional; noses get longer and faces slimmer...

Interesting comparison, hansvisions. Have you checked to see whether the Summicron and the Skopar have exactly the same angle of view? From those examples it appears as though there is a difference in the actual focal lengths of the lenses; that of the Skopar being slightly shorter. If so (and, of course, it is an 'If') that could explain, at least in part, the longer nose etc.

Philip.

Edited October 4, 2023 by pippy

[hansvons]

5 minutes ago, pippy said:

Have you checked to see whether the Summicron and the Skopar have exactly the same angle of view?

No, I have not. But they are in the same ballpark, like really close. It's not like that the Summciron is a 36mm lens and the Skopar is a 33 lens. But, of course, it's not a scientific test—that rendering issue also changes with the subject's distance. However, there's a clear trend to see.

I have done that with many other lenses over time. And it's a common phenomenon. When the rental shop got a new set of lenses, we met at their location and tested these things.

Filmmaking is mostly about portraiture. That's why cinematographers like to describe lenses as flat-rendering or on the more dimensional side regarding people and faces. The great thing about Leica primes in the 35mm-50mm range is that they render faces relatively flat, even the formidable 35mm APO SL, but show a distinct plasticity.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, hansvons said:

No, I have not. But they are in the same ballpark, like really close. It's not like that the Summciron is a 36mm lens and the Skopar is a 33 lens. But, of course, it's not a scientific test—that rendering issue also changes with the subject's distance. However, there's a clear trend to see.

I have done that with many other lenses over time. And it's a common phenomenon. When the rental shop got a new set of lenses, we met at their location and tested these things.

Filmmaking is mostly about portraiture. That's why cinematographers like to describe lenses as flat-rendering or on the more dimensional side regarding people and faces. The great thing about Leica primes in the 35mm-50mm range is that they render faces relatively flat, even the formidable 35mm APO SL, but show a distinct plasticity.

Many thanks for your insights into filmmaking. I don’t know much about it, but I’ve had the impression that filmmaking is further ahead than stills photographers at understanding techniques to avoid digital harshness and get closer to a filmic and (to my eyes) more beautiful look, especially for portraits, so it’s all rather interesting to read.

It’s not the first time I’ve read the word “plasticity” in this forum ….I’m just not clear what does it mean in the context of lens (and/or camera) rendering?

Edited October 4, 2023 by Jon Warwick

[hansvons]

5 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

It’s not the first time I’ve read the word “plasticity” in this forum ….I’m just not clear what does it mean in the context of lens (and/or camera) rendering?

It's another term for dimensionality. It's originated in the fine arts, painting, you name it. By saying, "This picture breathes a lot of plasticity" or "The painting over there shows a tremendous plasticity", one refers to the impression that an image's subject "jumps" at you. Totally exaggerated, but you get the idea. The camera itself doesn't contribute to that. It's the lens and the shots's "design". You need a subject in the middle (can be two, of course), a BG and a "side ground", things that help to define the space in which "plasticity" should happen. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by hansvons

[dpitt]

@hansvons Thanks for pointing out the differences in rendering faces. I never concentrated on that aspect when comparing my lenses. Not only is the overall image warmer with the Summicron. What always strikes me in the rendering of the Summicrons, are the beautiful tones. In your example the blue fabric seems to have much more gradations of  compared to the shot from the Color Skopar. I have the Color Skopar too and a range of Summicrons. (35 and 50). This test is very consistent with my results.

@pippy My theory is that this ability to render tones in more graduations than the Color Skopar is partly causing the difference in facial rendering. It is like drawing with thick strokes (outlines) in stead of finder detailed lines. Some features like the nose will be more pronounced when you use a more sketchy approach. But in this case it is more about tones than lines. What I try to describe does not have much to do with sharpness and detail, much more with tone differences.

Over the years, I have compared lots of Leica lenses. In any focal length Summicrons excel in rendering subtle details in the most beautiful way and at the same time without almost any distortion or aberrations. They have a smoothness in tones that can be seen throughout the family from the early 50's to the most modern examples. And still, every generation is slightly different. It is fascinating how they evolved over the last  70 years, and how they all show this common character.

Summiluxes have a different way of rendering. They play with light a little bit more. They have a more artistic approach which can be very pleasing and more 'in the face' compared to the Summicrons. When stopping down they will approach the rendering of the Summicrons, but not completely. The playfulness with light remains. Also, from the early 60s till now, I found that Summiluxes have much more variation in quality. Some are rather soft wide open for a Leica lens, while the latest designs are very good wide open. All of them are very sharp when stopped down to F4.0 or more.

What we see is very personal. Our eyes are different, our uses and subjects are different. That is why nothing can beat comparing these lenses for yourself. Most vintage lenses keep their value well, so you can experiment a bit yourself, buy one, use it for a while and sell it to get your money back if it does not work for you. With new lenses, that is harder, but maybe you live in a country where affordable renting options are available.

[RexGig0]

Before I buy any lens, vintage or modern, I do find sample images on-line, as part of the research process. I shoot mundane test images, after acquiring any lens. I do not often save these mundane test JPEGs. Occasionally, I will test, side-by-side. Though I already owned a Summilux-M 50mm ASPH, a favored lens for images of people, plus a Summicron-M 50mm Version IV/V, and an Elmar-M 50mm, I was interested in adding a Cosina Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar, for conditions that would, predictably, cause the Summilux or even a Summicron to show veiling flare.

This you-tube comparison video helped me to decide to buy the 50mm APO Lanthar:

I also carefully viewed images posted in forums, and on some websites. A long-running thread at the Fred Miranda forum was especially helpful. After my APO Lanthar was delivered, I tested it on a sunny morning, against my Summilux-M 50mm ASPH. The results were quite obvious, and predictable. My Summilux ASPH remains my most-favored M-mount lens, but, it now has a complementary lens, for specific conditions.

Edited October 4, 2023 by RexGig0