Leica Lens template proposal

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I like to see the M11 magenta tint thread as an example to follow: a mature, professional, co-operative analysis of a technical issue, achieving a consensus that everyone else in the forum can accept.

I haven't read it but I still suspect that I know what you mean🤫.

[Advertisement]

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

[pgk]

52 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I like to see the M11 magenta tint thread as an example to follow:

I just dipped into it. I feel so inadequate. I think I'll just stick to taking photos.

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Altair:

I do know that a dedicated thread would have to be created to gather suggestions for the general template, with a project lead or several project leads doing polls and making final decisions.

There are many sites out there, that try to provide "objective" lens tests based on generalized templates. Also in the early days of my 3D-Kraft blog, I tried to develop such a generalized approach (for measurable things like resolution, vignetting, focus shift etc.) combined with real-life images demonstrating the character of a lens (non-measurable attributes like out-of-focus rendering ("bokeh"), imperfections like flares etc). So I know how time-consuming this is.

Also BastianK (as contributor to the site philipreeve.net) developed such a procedure to a quite impressive level during the last years. Not only, but also for M-mount lenses.

If you expect something on that level with this meaningfulness and comparability, then you have to find a way to make it financially viable in the long term. I do not expect to develop something on a forum like the LUF because only the operator/owner of this forum would benefit from it and not the contributors.

[Ecar]

'Helping the uninitiated' might require a fourth thread, where Leica lenses are compared to others, where feasible (eg, APO Summicrons vs their CV equivalents).

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not volunteering for this.😅

[pippy]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

...One of the problems here  is illustrated by the "King of Bokeh" saga...

Absolutely. Such subjective aspects as 'Boke' and 'Rendering' can be rolled-out to cover any of the older lenses as well as the majority of the newer ones.

I had read so many virtiolic comments regarding the wide-open 'Rendering' (in terms of OOF and Contrast) of the 50mm f1.5 Summarit that I was astonished to discover, having acquired one for myself, that not only did I like the 'Look' the lens provided it had absolutely no problems whatsoever in the Contrast department.

My suspicion is that so many of these lenses have been treated carelessly over the last 70 years that many 'reviewers' have only experienced results obtained by using relatively trashed examples. As such the Summarit has received (unjustifiably in my view) a poor reputation. This poor reputation subsequently becomes repeated on the www ad infinitum by people who might well have had no personal experience of the lens yet feel justified to post their views anyway.

However; if the OP manages to sort out some sort of plan and launches a thread as suggested perhaps it might be named 'Opening Pandora's Box'?...

😸

Philip.

[pedaes]

Just now, Al Brown said:

Puts reborn.

If only!

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the 'problems' today is that the vast majority of lenses made are actually very adequate for their purpose so differences in lenses are mostly nuances, and defining the differences betwenn nuances is never going to be easy and largely (to most users) irrelevant. Having made my living from photography for over 40 years I can honestly say that I've never had a complaint about an image delivered by any lens I have owned and used, and some well used and sometimes abused lenses have delivered great images. Nuance has its place and is discussed ad infinitum in this forum but I still don't think it would be possible to quantify these usually subjective qualities of lenses because they rely on opinions at the end of the day.

[Altair]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

One of the problems here  is illustrated by the "King of Bokeh" saga. Mike Johnston (TOP) once put this in a caption for the Summicron 35 V4. It gained traction and made the lens an Internet legend. However, as he later revealed the he rarely if ever used the lens wide open, as he rather disliked the OOF rendering and it was more of tongue-in-cheek, which he regretted in retrospect. He was right too, as opposed to all the lyrical "reviews" that followed, the lens is not one of Leica's best in this respect. But the myth lives on... 

How are you going to filter this kind of nonsense?

That is a great point and one that needs some serious thought.

 

I would say a group of knowledgeable experienced owners would have to be assembled per lens in question to put forth their opinions and a concensus could be reached on a simple democratic process. Better known as an online poll.

 

Allow me to state, this is obviously not going to ever be perfect. But it can be a very useful collection if insights and best effort that would be invaluable to a newcomer before he eventually moves on to create his own opinion, use cases, and eventually makes the lens his own. 

[Altair]

I want to see this happen, and firmly believe that once the ball gets rolling this will be sold enjoyable and the usefulness so clear we won't be able to stop. This effort would be so comprehensive and valuable it will eliminate redundant threads for decades to come, the names associated will go down in Leica history, the general quality of pictures taken by newcomers will be sold much better it will be all but impossible to differentiate a legendary photographer from a first time user.

 

I feel my hand is forced, for the sake of a proof of concept i will start running the test overviews and setup an online template. I need suggestions on two lenses, a widely used lens and a challenge lens.

[Ecar]

1 hour ago, Altair said:

I want to see this happen, and firmly believe that once the ball gets rolling this will be sold enjoyable and the usefulness so clear we won't be able to stop. This effort would be so comprehensive and valuable it will eliminate redundant threads for decades to come, the names associated will go down in Leica history, the general quality of pictures taken by newcomers will be sold much better it will be all but impossible to differentiate a legendary photographer from a first time user.

Seriously?🙄

[Altair]

I have decided to end the discussion and actually attempt this. With your help, I am sure this will be a success.

I am staring this thread to gather opinions on the structure of the user guide++ if you will. I will kick things off with a starting suggested template:

-Lens overview ( includes minimal technical and maximum utilization description )

A plethora of online reviews, published opinions, and our consensus here should make for the basis of a strong 2-3 paragraph summery of the lens.

-Lens celebrated strengths and known short comings

Self explanatory. Example: great bokeh, limited to 1m close focusing distance 

-Suggested use cases ( portraits, landscape, still life etc )

 

- Proof of suggested use cases and strengths.

Powerful pictures that showcase the characteristics the lens in question is known for. This could be the most useful section for the uninitiated as it can be used during decision making on acquisition and later on as targets to use while practicing with the lens. Again, a good photographer will want to move on beyond this eventually and male.the lens his own, developing his own use case scenarios and coming up with new use cases unique to his vision, but this is meant to be a valuable starting point and for many owners ( average photographers with no unique vision such as yours truly ) a way for them to use this lens to make beutifull pictures and enjoy a finely made and well engineered instrument. Both audiences should be addressed here.

 

Resources:

A collection of additional resources could be collected here as supplementary information for those who wish to dig deeper. MTF charts and the such.

Looking forward to your enhancement of the template. Once we have agreed on a final format and we have agreed on the details and have the two lenses ( widely used and niche lenses ) I will proceed to develop the proof of concept user guides+. Eventually someone more experienced and capable will hopefully come forward to see this through.

 

 

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, Altair said:

Powerful pictures that showcase the characteristics the lens in question is known for. This could be the most useful section for the uninitiated as it can be used during decision making on acquisition and later on as targets to use while practicing with the lens.

Most pictures I’ve seen that were supposed to showcase the character of a lens told me nothing. There are some essential characteristics that resemble the character of a lens. Most of these characteristics can be seen in an environmental portrait shot in a background-up mood with lots of backlight.

The curvature at mid distances. To evaluate that you need an environmental portrait that has enough things in it at the correct distances. Shoot that at full aperture and the 3 following stops.

Skin tone rendering. Can only be seen in comparison with other lenses in the same shot and the same grading. As lenses change their colour drawing as you stop down, you need again a series of pictures shot at different stops starting with full aperture.

Flatness vs dimensionality. To evaluate that you need to shoot different lenses with the same focal length showing the exact same environmental portrait, from full aperture to f/4.

Background and foreground blur. Again a well-arranged environmental portrait will tell you everything you need to know about bokeh.

Focus roll-off. The same environmental portrait when set up thoughtfully can tell you here a lot as well.

Flaring. Flare resistance and how flares look can be a decisive argument.

There are many more variables like how long shots at infinity look (eg corner sharpness), vignetting etc. However, shooting flowers, garden gnomes, antique cars, pets, and the inevitable sunset won’t cut it. 

If I were approaching a project like yours I’d keep it entirely anecdotally. Only 1% of M lenses users have the eye for, the knowledge or interest in properly conducted lens tests. Having such a project based on interviews adds tons of relatable storytelling and helps the newbie to navigate a sector that is overwhelming for eveyone who's roots are not photography or engineering and the likes. I can only speak for myself, but I can say with confidence that all photo-taking people I know never look at nor understand MFT curves, give a damn about brick walls and corner sharpness but like to hear why I bought that Summarit 35mm. 

Photography is storytelling. So should everything about photography, except when engineers talk to engineers. (I know that, like sailing, many photographers and videographers have a technical background and love gear talk to such an extent that the assumption that it’s more about gear than results isn’t far-fetched). 

Edited January 5 by hansvons

[pgk]

OK, here's a rough, objective and comprehensive summary of Leica M lenses:

Earlier lenses: can be surprisingly good but can suffer from flare and corners are never as well defined as centres. Fast lenses are soft wide open. Most perform acceptably stopped down well.

Later pre-aspherical lenses: Performance is good even by today's standards but fast lenses can be poor performers wide open due to the inability of their designers to completelt overcome aberrations. Wide angles tend to have poorer corner performance. Stopped down they will deliver great results. Some do flare.

Aspherical and other current lenses: These are able to deliver results which are excellent by any standards. They perform well wide open and edge performance is excellent throughout. Flare is usually, but not always, well controlled (hoods could sometimes bebetter). Optically they may be room for marginal improvement but this is in essence academic because the only people likely to notice any change are going to be pixel peepers.

Now, you can argue about the nuances but my personal take is that my current 21/35 & 50mm lenses are all aspheric designs. My 75/90 & 135 are not - their performance as spherical designs is perfectly adequate for anything I want to do. I've owned a lot of M lenses over the years and my requirements haven't changed so much as my appreciation of which lenses I find most satisfying. And FWIW I use lots of other lenses from the early 1860s to state-of-the-art AF offerings. The forumhas as much information on lenses as anyone copuld need and it can be searched for. I really don't think that yet another lens 'testing' correlation will actually do much in all honesty.

 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Most pictures I’ve seen that were supposed to showcase the character of a lens told me nothing. 

Probably, as you went on to explain, because of the complexity involved in actually trying to correlate performance throughout both aperture and focus ranges under highly varied lighting conditions. Manufacturers provide 'snapshots' of date (MTF) at specified settings (aperture and probably infinity focus). Imagine providing MTF charts at each aperture and at meaningful focus settings. And MTF charts are only one, small aspect of performance. You would need to add in field curvature at the same settings, distortion and then try to quantify flare which is notoriousy tricky. And when all is correlated it still needs to be translated into practicality which is far from easy.

[JoshuaR]

I agree very much with @hansvons. The difficulty (as others have pointed out in the previous thread) is that actually comparing lenses in a nuanced and thorough way—especially lenses that are as broadly similar as, say, the 35mm Summicron v3 and v4, or the 24mm Elmarit and Elmar—is a very detail-oriented undertaking. There's a reason it can take someone a year to come to grips with the nuances of a lens. It's because you have to use it in all sorts of situations, placing all sorts of demands on it, before you really understand how it performs and renders. And everyone places different demands on their lenses, because they use them for wildly different purposes. For example, @Altair, I would never use a Noctilux to take the kinds of photographs you've posted (that is, photographs of objects); I've used my 50 f/1.2 mainly to take portraits of my children. That's not a criticism of your pictures at all, only an example of an obvious difference in what a lens might "mean" to us.

It is, in my view, simply impossible to underestimate the role that different photography (and post-processing) styles will have on how a lens "looks." A good example from my own experience is this review of the 35mm Steel Rim reissue. It was one of the first I read, and it influenced me in my decision to buy the lens—but the images it showcases look almost nothing like the ones I obtain when I use it to photograph my wife and kids in the small American town where we live. His pictures look to be made with a lens that's about five decades older than mine. 

So what was actually useful in the review? It was the author's personal narrative of what led him to invest in that lens. I learned a great deal from his discussion, combined with his photos.

I would favor a much more personal approach. Something in which users were encouraged to:

• Identify a favorite lens.
• Explain how they use it—in what contexts, for what purposes.
• Explain why they value it, and its shortcomings.
• Explain the alternatives they've tried and why they settled on their choice.
• Provide sample images which seem to them to capture the characteristics of the lens, as they use it.

I think that any attempt to rely on consensus to describe objective characteristics of a lens will end up being both generic and potentially misleading. At that level—the "basic overview" level—it's more useful for someone to provide an overview of the M system lens assortment generally, as @pgk did in the previous thread.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Al Brown said:

unless Kolari modded

And even then - Kolari does not exchange microlenses.

[pgk]

14 minutes ago, JoshuaR said:

There's a reason it can take someone a year to come to grips with the nuances of a lens.

Thank you. Absolutely. If I've learned anything from using many lenses it is that it takes a long time to thoroughly explore an individual lens's characterstics and potential/possibilities. My most used lens by far is my 35mm Summilux (pre-FLE) which I have owned since 2009. IMO it is a highly competent all round 35mm lens and I personally prefer it to any of the Summicrons (I've owned v.1, 2, 3, 4 and the aspheric versions and the pre-aspheric Summilux) and see no need to change it for a more modern version. I know how it will deliver results in varied lighting conditions and how it will throw out of focus backgrounds. But its taken a long time to appreciate this lens and I cannot now see parting with it.

But if you read the forums here, and about this lens elsewhere, you will find that it suffers from focus shift slightly stopped down which is often inferred to be a significant drawback. I suspect that any serious 'review' will highlight this as a distinct problem and accordingly will put people off trying the lens (its still not cheap after all). Despite this 'serious' flaw (which I personally have never found significantly problematic) it remains my favourite 35mm lens.

[hansvons]

42 minutes ago, pgk said:

Thank you. Absolutely. If I've learned anything from using many lenses it is that it takes a long time to thoroughly explore an individual lens's characterstics and potential/possibilities. My most used lens by far is my 35mm Summilux (pre-FLE) which I have owned since 2009. IMO it is a highly competent all round 35mm lens and I personally prefer it to any of the Summicrons (I've owned v.1, 2, 3, 4 and the aspheric versions and the pre-aspheric Summilux) and see no need to change it for a more modern version. I know how it will deliver results in varied lighting conditions and how it will throw out of focus backgrounds. But its taken a long time to appreciate this lens and I cannot now see parting with it.

But if you read the forums here, and about this lens elsewhere, you will find that it suffers from focus shift slightly stopped down which is often inferred to be a significant drawback. I suspect that any serious 'review' will highlight this as a distinct problem and accordingly will put people off trying the lens (its still not cheap after all). Despite this 'serious' flaw (which I personally have never found significantly problematic) it remains my favourite 35mm lens.

Great anecdote here. 

When reading about the pre-FLE Summilux ASPH in a hypothetical Leica Lens Overview, I'd like to read this quote because the above says more about the lens than most pictures could.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[UliWer]

I think the effort would be spent more usefully if the Forum's "Wiki" https://wiki.l-camera-forum.com/leica-wiki.en/index.php/M_Lenses_x_Ordinal was updated and some errors and inconsistencies corrected. On the other hand: I fear not many users would take notice. 

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Al Brown:

- Leica M lenses perform differently if not used on a Leica body. Many people put them on a Sony, Nikon etc. mirrorless cameras and those use cases are NOT representative (unless Kolari modded) to be added to lens performance description.

Anyone who moves a little out of the red-dot-bubble can see, that many of these lenses are put on other mirrorless cameras and when combined with an AF-supporting adapter, the application area can be significantly expanded (especially for the longer focal lengths >=50mm when used for portraiture). So I disagree, that those uses cases are not representative for a lens performance section. What you talk about, is lens performance for the application it was originally designed for (older lenses before 2005 mainly for usage on analog film). This is an eternally yesterday's view and time moves on. But many of todays users and probably a growing number in the future are interested in the performance when adapted to other sensors/filter-glass stacks.

There was a lot of interest in my tests in 2014, which demonstrated which M-mount wide angle lenses also work well on the Sony filter stack - e.g. pictures taken with the WATE or the Voigländer Ultron 21/1.8 Ultron achieved enormous click rates.

BastianK usually shows the performance of M-mount lenses side-by-side on both a Sony and a Leica, and sometimes also on a Nikon mirrorless.

Edited January 5 by 3D-Kraft.com