In praise of the Mandler lenses

[Jed Orme]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As someone new to Leica with an M240, I came from the Fuji X system where I had adapted a few M mount lenses on my X-Pro1 & X-E2.  One of them, which was my favorite, is the 90mm Tele-Elmarit (thin version).  I understood at the time I got it that it was a "Mandler lens", which I attributed that characterization to be more about its' Canadian heritage than anything else.  However as soon as I started using it on my M, I realized that there really was something very unique & special about it.  So I am extremely glad I happened on this forum thread yesterday (it has taken two days to read all of the posting over almost 8 years), as I now have a much greater appreciation for what it is, how it differs from the other Leica lenses, & most importantly, the incredible person who created it.  Thank you all for my education!

[ramarren]

Recently Leica 'updated' their 28mm f2 & 2.8 and 35mm f2.8 lenses, with what appears to be minimal design changes, to suit the flatter (at the edges) digital sensor as apposed to the slightly 'curved' edges of a film sensor.  Prior to that they appear to have been introducing FLE versions (the 90mm f2 to come).

 

I wonder if it would make business sense for Leica to re-release the old Mandler lenses but for the flatter digital sensor?  

 

The whole internet is about pixel peeping but it's how the image fits together that's important (the so called 'Lieca look') & I feel that we are getting technically brilliant lenses at present but that destinctive 'look' is being lost.

 

 

The specific "Leica look" has changed over time, in different eras, when different materials, processes, and most of all lens designers, combined together to express their unique charm and genius. Walter Mandler's work is/was exquisite, but what of the excellent designers before him, and what of Peter Karbe's superb work since? Leica has been around a long time, will be around a long time to come .. Are we to lock Leica and hamstring the excellent work of new genius into just one thing and one thing forever? 

 

That seems a foolish notion. Dr Mandler's work does not suffer from the genius that follows him, nor does it detract from the genius that it was preceded by. Leica, and Leica users, benefit from all of it. To lock Leica into one thing, one time, one look, is to rob it of life because Life itself depends upon change and motion. Anything fixed and static, unchanging, is dead, inanimate. 

 

So do honor Dr Mandler and his wonderful lens designs, enjoy them, but give Leica and the other genius who are/will come the opportunity to live and deliver their expressions to the world. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by ramarren

[Advertisement]

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

[DMJ]

You are correct ramarren in that time & people (designers) move on & that things change and Leica are striving, as other camera manufacturers, to make modern perfect lenses. I have several modern M lenses myself.

 

My point was that there would be a market for a selection of Mandler design lenses reproduced today, a sort of 'Classic' line of M lenses.  Yes the old lenses are available on the second hand market but that makes Leica no money.  I would be interested in a reproduced 'Classic' & I'm fairly sure that others would too.  I do not suggest for one moment that they should replace the modern incarnations, just exploit something that the other camera manufactures don't have in their histories.

[ramarren]

I am not certain that there would be enough market to warrant opening up production lines, with all the costs associated, to manufacture again lenses that the company had already deemed time to retire. As much as there are those like us, I suspect we're a fraction of the total market and likely not a profitable audience given the huge amounts of money it costs to ramp up to production any lens, even an existing design. 

 

But it's an interesting sentiment. I strongly doubt it will ever happen, however. Leica moves forwards, always ...  

[hendriphile]

As someone new to Leica with an M240, I came from the Fuji X system where I had adapted a few M mount lenses on my X-Pro1 & X-E2. One of them, which was my favorite, is the 90mm Tele-Elmarit (thin version). I understood at the time I got it that it was a "Mandler lens", which I attributed that characterization to be more about its' Canadian heritage than anything else. However as soon as I started using it on my M, I realized that there really was something very unique & special about it. So I am extremely glad I happened on this forum thread yesterday (it has taken two days to read all of the posting over almost 8 years), as I now have a much greater appreciation for what it is, how it differs from the other Leica lenses, & most importantly, the incredible person who created it. Thank you all for my education!

I hope you'll share what you have found special about this lens.

[pgk]

..... Leica are striving, as other camera manufacturers, to make modern perfect lenses.

 

My point was that there would be a market for a selection of Mandler design lenses reproduced today, a sort of 'Classic' line of M lenses.

 

The question is not so much as whether there would be a market but rather how would 'classic' designs compete against their similarly specified 'modern' counterparts? To offer two lenses, say both 35mm Summicrons, one of which is a thoroughly modern aspheric precisely rendering design, and another which would of older style spherical design, so on paper not so good (MTFs would be lower) could be a price pitching and marketing nightmare. Competing Summicrons might prove difficult to sell to any but the aficionados of which there are probably not all that many and would probably require additional features such as older knurling style, black paint, etc. to add in collectabiliy to boost sales. Even so, given that the second hand 'classic' lens market is thriving and few are unobtainable I don't see such products being a profitable way to go (I may of course be thoroughly wrong but that's my own thoughts and summation).

[michaelwj]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The question is not so much as whether there would be a market but rather how would 'classic' designs compete against their similarly specified 'modern' counterparts? To offer two lenses, say both 35mm Summicrons, one of which is a thoroughly modern aspheric precisely rendering design, and another which would of older style spherical design, so on paper not so good (MTFs would be lower) could be a price pitching and marketing nightmare. Competing Summicrons might prove difficult to sell to any but the aficionados of which there are probably not all that many and would probably require additional features such as older knurling style, black paint, etc. to add in collectabiliy to boost sales. Even so, given that the second hand 'classic' lens market is thriving and few are unobtainable I don't see such products being a profitable way to go (I may of course be thoroughly wrong but that's my own thoughts and summation).

Isn't this what the Summarit line attempts to do, offer a "more gentle" alternative (based only on reports, I've never used one).

 

Michael

Edited February 12, 2016 by michaelwj

[pgk]

Isn't this what the Summarit line attempts to do, offer a "more gentle" alternative (based only on reports, I've never used one).

 

Michael

 

Yes, but the 35mm is actually an aspheric design. I've only tried the 35 and 75 (both f/2.5 - last 'generation') which I thought to be excellent lenses, and I would agree that they appear to produce results more in line with older designs - highly competent lenses but without the 'edge' of the latest aspheric designs. But this still leaves the aperture and competing problem. The Summarits appear pitched at the point where their users are interested in quality, not speed, and at a lower price point. So they have their place, but would faster none aspheric designs add anything to Leica's lens line up?

[Jed Orme]

I hope you'll share what you have found special about this lens.

Here are some of the very first photos taken with this lens & I was immediately impressed with the optical quality in terms of creating images that were so like what I had remembered seeing.  The colors were bright & lifelike, but with just enough contrast & sharpness to be very pleasing.  Comparing it to my extremely sharp Zeiss 50mm Planar, it seems to me to render with slightly less pop but no less clarity or detail.  And the out of focus areas at almost any aperture are very even & pleasing to my eyes at least.  What is most impressive is to achieve these results in a telephoto lens this small & compact, compared to the DSLR one's I had been using before.

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!

[Jed Orme]

And here are two more images that couldn't be attached to my last post.

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!

[Musotographer]

The 'thin' Tele-Elmarit is one of my favourite lenses - I very rarely take the camera out without it at least being in my pocket. I got it with my first Leica a couple of years ago, 'thrown in' for about £300 I think, to go with the Summicron 50 which was going to be my main lens. At the time I had never heard of Mandler, and I have only recently realised that it is in fact one of his designs. Wide open I sometimes need to give it a touch more contrast and saturation in pp, but stopped down it is exemplary. It is my only 90, but I don't feel any need for another one

 

This is Chesil Bank in Dorset from Portland on a perfect day last summer; it was at about f8 - the detail is astonishing at full size:

 

Christopher

 

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!

[NB23]

In twenty years time the title of the thread will be: "In praise of Karbe lenses". Leica has been fortunate to be able to attract these grand masters of lens design over the years.

That's simply because the Leica crowd is in need of owning something extra. Ceteris Paribus, the Nikon and Canon lens designers are just as skilled.

 

In the Leica land, the customer's magical thinking is the most crucial part and the basis of all.

 

Take Nikon's 50mm f1.8. That lens' signature is nothing short of a Mandler Classic. The problem is it's not made of metal, it doesn't cost 3575$, it's not "rare" and it'a not a Leica.

Edited February 14, 2016 by NB23

[Berlinman]

Sorry, not for me. I have used Canon for 25 years inkl. 1:1,2/85L, 1:1,4/24L etc. and I use Nikon stuff since more than 20 years. For me my Leica lenses are in average much better and I'm quite new with Leica - only 14 years. And I like the old Mandler-designs 75lux, 1.0-Nocti and some if the new 50Apo, 35FLE. I have changed to Leica because if these lenses, not because the name is Leica. (I was a bug Canon-fan until they killed the FD-Line...)

[CheshireCat]

Take Nikon's 50mm f1.8. That lens' signature is nothing short of a Mandler Classic. The problem is it's not made of metal, it doesn't cost 3575$, it's not "rare" and it'a not a Leica.

 

 

Uhm... never shot with the Nikon 50/1.8, but Canon's one is utter crap.

Many people mistake "classic" for "crappy".

[NB23]

Uhm... never shot with the Nikon 50/1.8, but Canon's one is utter crap.

Many people mistake "classic" for "crappy".

I never shot with the Canon. But the myth is strong and not to be underestimated. Nothing transforms a crappy lens into a classic lens better than this magic trick: hold the crappy Leica lens into your hand and say these magic words: "sharpness is a bourgeois concept".

 

Bam.

 

Legendary. The lens is now a rare Leica lens with magic properties.

 

If you can find a picture of HCB using one: BAM! 2000$ premium on top of it.

 

This is how it goes. And I participate in that game, shamelessly.

 

But I also use the nikkor 50 f1.8 AF a lot and the files are amazing. Fully rivals the 50 Lux V2.

Edited February 15, 2016 by NB23

[pgk]

In the Leica land, the customer's magical thinking is the most crucial part and the basis of all.

 

And at the heart of the magical thinking lies the M series rangefinder with all that goes with it. Like it or not shooting with such a camera remains a unique experience on so many levels; ergonomics, iconic camera design, history, heritage, size, weight, small and beautifully constructed lenses, and many, many more, some obvious, some not. Its not magic, but in the minds of us users Leica M cameras have a persona unlike any other cameras. For myself, I enjoy the rangefinder experience and Mandler's designs are a part of this. But if anyone really wants to be honest about lens design and general usability then we've had 'good' lenses from a lot of manufacturers for many decades. Enjoying the tradition and heritage of Mandler's lenses is no bad thing. The problem lies when they acquire a cult following based on ambiguous properties - which are difficult to define because they do not exist. But Mandler designed some iconic lenses such as the 35mm f/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux, which are milestones in lens design and still usable 50+ years on. Pretty impressive even if they cannot compete in pure technical terms with modern designs by Karbe and others.

 

And FWIW I always thought that the 50/2 Nikkor was the standard focal length Nikkor to have and use - and far better built than the 1.8 . I've owned a few.

[semi-ambivalent]

 

And FWIW I always thought that the 50/2 Nikkor was the standard focal length Nikkor to have and use - and far better built than the 1.8 . I've owned a few.

The last pixel-peeping I ever did was between a 50mm f/2 Ai Nikkor and a 50mm f/1.8 AiS long nose. The 1.8 edged it out by a nose; visibly, but by so very little. Probably sample variation. They're both metal and superbly made btw. But they're both substantially larger than my 50 Summicorn V4, and therein lies some of the difference. Some people are willing to pay for things others view as being of little or no importance. It can get pretty subtle but if it wasn't the case we'd all probably be wearing Mao jackets by now. Look at it as re-distribution of wealth, or something. It matters little to picture taking; a lot to marketing.

 

s-a

[pgk]

But they're both substantially larger than my 50 Summicorn V4, and therein lies some of the difference.

 

And the fact that I can't use either on a rangefinder like i can an M series lens . FWIW the 35/2.5 Nikonos lens is based on an early Nikon rangefinder lens and it works very well on the Nikonos (above water too). Late copies (~2000ish) featured really good Nikon coatings so should be a lot better than when the lens was originally introduced. Optically its good but modifying it to work on an M as a rangefinder lens would cost an arm and a leg - and therein lies the cost/problem.

[CheshireCat]

hold the crappy Leica lens into your hand and say these magic words: "sharpness is a bourgeois concept".

 

Bam.

 

Legendary. The lens is now a rare Leica lens with magic properties.

 

 

Hahah, true !

But many Leica lenses are really amazing and unique.

 

Take the Noctilux f/1 for example. It was released 40 years ago, in 1976, and designed when computers were nothing compared to the ones we have today. One may not like the strong character of the lens, but we must admit that it is unique.

Magic ? Nothing is magic, but it is amazing how Mandler could design an f/1 lens back then which is actually smaller than most f/1.4 lenses of today. Amazing... like magic.

Other f/1 lenses are huge, and even the mighty Karbe couldn't design a f/1 lens which is as light and compact 30 years later, with modern computers, modern special glasses, and asphericals.

The famous Noctilux glass was created ad-hoc (home-brewed) for the Noctilux lenses of that era, and it certainly has a mythological status. As proper for all legends, there's no lack of exaggerations, magic, and myths (like 3 years for the glass to slowly cool down, et cetera ).

Now, I can certainly grab my good old C/Y Zeiss 50/1.7 (paid €70) and take great pictures with it, but every time I reach instead for the Noctilux f/1, and every time I am surprised about how much I love this lens.

Is love magic ?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Uhm... never shot with the Nikon 50/1.8, but Canon's one is utter crap.

Many people mistake "classic" for "crappy".

Err..Which Canon 50/1.8?  I totally agree  that the plastic EOS toy is not something to be proud of, but the 1950-ies LTM one is better than  the Leitz lenses of the period.