New Glass-v-Old

[kenneth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read many comments on the virtues of new Leica lenses v older models. I have recently bought a 35mm f2 Summicron asph to complement my newly acquired M6 classic both of which are second hand in mint condition but he Summicron is latest generation.

 

It would seem to me that film emulsions and film manufacture have moved on with time and I assume that Leica technicians consider this when they design their lenses. That being so would it be safe to assume a modern generation lens will give the best performance with modern film stock?

 

If this is the case what would be the justification in buying earlier lenses other than price point. Or am I missing something? I mention this in passing as I am considering a 50mm lens to complement my system. If the above scenario is fact then I can only assume my ideal choice to be a 50mm Summicron?

 

I am sorry it is sort of three questions in reality

[Advertisement]

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

[mike_h]

Hi Kenneth,

 

I'm not going to try and give you a technical answer, but rather a "user" answer. I have Leica lenses from the 70s, early 80s and then a modern aspheric as well.

 

For me the change seems to be incremental. The biggest difference - and this is a generalisation with all the limitations of such - the older lenses appear a little "flatter" in their rendering and the modern is "crisper".

 

By "flatter" I mean with less contrast and in some cases with a tiny amount of softness. By crisper I mean with greater contrast and a tiny edge in sharpness. The modern aspheric often brings oohs and aahs when people see a print. It seems to have a little more bite. Then again I get the same response from people about pictures from the Zeiss Biogon on the Hassleblad SWC/M and that's by no means a recent lens.

 

I'm happy to own and use all of my lenses. If you are after a crisper rendition then the modern aspherics seem to have a little edge but a big difference in price.

 

Happy photography.

 

Mike

 

PS: as a bit of an afterthought. You may well find 35 and 50 too close together. If you are thinking about another lens then you might care to think about a 90mm next, perhaps then going to a very wide like a 21 or to the 50 later. Of course such matters are like politics and religion - subject to strong personal bias. For me the 50 is the least used lens with the 21 and the 90 sharing the honours followed by the 35.

M

[kenneth]

PS: as a bit of an afterthought. You may well find 35 and 50 too close together. If you are thinking about another lens then you might care to think about a 90mm next, perhaps then going to a very wide like a 21 or to the 50 later. Of course such matters are like politics and religion - subject to strong personal bias. For me the 50 is the least used lens with the 21 and the 90 sharing the honours followed by the 35.

M

 

Thank you for that Mike- with regards to your PS. I bought a Voigtlander 75mm f2.5 Heliar at the same time as I bought the camera and 35mm lens. In fact I, I take your point, might well do without a 50mm altogether, I will wait and see but thank you for responding

[bill]

Kenneth, when building up a set of lenses, these, though slightly out of date, may help:

 

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!

 

 

 

Coming back to your original question, I use what I would term a "palette" of LTM and M mount lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Canon. Let me explain the logic behind some of my choices. I shall stick to those I mostly use on M-mount cameras, whether LTM or M, because the logic is slightly different for my LTMs:

 

50mm f2.8 Elmar M - Bought new - the sharpest collapsible lens. I'll forgo speed for portability, particularly when travelling. I had a 50mm Summicron 4th version, but prefer this as my normal lens.

 

50mm f2.0 Dual Range Summicron - Bought used, for the unique "look", for the beautiful craftsmanship and for the fact that it "matches" my M2.

 

50mm f1.2 Canon - Bought used - my fastest lens. I neither want nor can justify the cost of a Noctilux for the small amount of low light work I do.

 

Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Pancake I - Bought new - my primary 35mm. I had a 4th Version Summicron, but prefer the handling and contrasty performance of the Voigtlander.

 

75mm f2.5 Colour Heliar - bought new when the only other choice was the 75mm Summilux. I like this focal length, and this lens and if I was starting out again I would go for the 75mm Summicron, but there is not enough difference for me to make the trade.

 

135mm f3.5 Canon - bought used - I had the last model Tele-Elmarit-M f4.0, and flirted briefly with the f2.8 years ago. The Canon is lighter and faster than the first, and considerably lighter than the second. I would like a 3.4 APO but they are like hen's teeth, and the Canon is an exceptional performer.

 

I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. The lenses I have mentioned, new or used, are all bought for a reason, and not just for cost. Similarly, the money I have spent on my IIIc, IID, CLAs and associated lenses could have gone a long way to financing an M8.

 

It's not always about the fastest, or the sharpest, or the newest. For me, at least, it is 80% about the desired result and 20% about the sheer joy of using fine machinery that challenges me to use it well.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Leicademon]

I agree with the above posts with regard contrast and 'bite'. The newer lenses are certainly sharper, but that's not always a good thing. My wife, for instance, won't let me photograph her with the apo Summicron-m asph 90. It's too unforgiving! She likes the rendering of the previous Summicrom-m... still sharp as a tack, but somehow more flattering. Occasionally I use a 1930's uncoated Elmar 50, either on a Barnack body or with adapter on an M. By contemporary technical standards it is a crap lens. But it really suits certain shots- old school to the max- vignette, flare and all other warts included. It is possible to get flare with flair (although 99% of the time it's undesirable).

It really is a question of aesthetics. For most uses the new gear is 'best' but the old glass has a look that can't be replicated in photoshop. The not so old glass holds it own stopped down to f5.6 or smaller apertures. The big difference is wide open, where the newest models really show their worth. Hope that doesn't confuse things.

[dfbldwn]

50mm f2.8 Elmar M - . . . but prefer this as my normal lens.

Regards,

Bill

I thought I'd read you prefer the 40mm 1.4 Nokton as your normal lens. Different "Bill" or am I hallucinating?

 

I agree with your choice as a normal lens. At f/8, I think my 50mm 2.8 Elmar takes better frame-filling portraits than any 90mm 2.0 APO Asph I've used.

Best,

David

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought I'd read you prefer the 40mm 1.4 Nokton as your normal lens. Different "Bill" or am I hallucinating?

 

I agree with your choice as a normal lens. At f/8, I think my 50mm 2.8 Elmar takes better frame-filling portraits than any 90mm 2.0 APO Asph I've used.

Best,

David

 

No, David, I'm sure at one time I probably did say that, and I still have that Nokton in my bag, and rate it very highly. But I have found less use for it these days. It may well be because when Barnacking (can I say that?) 90% of my shots are with a 5cm Elmar, and that is the way I "see" most often these days. It's certainly true to say that I have significantly more 50mm lenses than any other f/l.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[Guest suilvenman]

Congratulations, Bill. I believe you've just introduced a new verb to the English language:

 

to Barnack (def. to take a photograph using a Leica camera specifically designed by Oskar Barnack)

 

See also French: Barnacker: to Barnack.

 

Cheers, Ken.

[kenneth]

Thank you all for that and especially Bill for the graphics they are really helpful. Would it also be fair to say that the earlier lenses perform to their truest when using pre RC papers and sympathetic chemical, i.e. are they more Barnackable (following your lead). I, like you Bill enjoy to use and get the best I can from superbly engineered items. Hence my preference for mechanical chronometers which I have mentioned before, and also using fine hand tools for cabinetmaking which are not as quick as using modern tool methods are far more satisfying to use.

[lars_bergquist]

Let's keep to the optical side, leaving out even an enlarger lens ... 'Sharpness' is not a very meaningful term. It's subjective, an experience. Even if it is called 'definition', which is really composed of two things: resolution and contrast.

 

Older lenses were optimised for resolution. Contrast could not be measured directly, and the enlargement chain (film development, enlarger lens, paper and paper development) introduced lots of variables. Early versions of MTF measurement came in during the late 1950's, concurrently with computers. The Japanese were first to discover that the users wanted definition, not resolution per se, and that contrast was an important part of it. One American user said about the collapsible Summicron (of 1953) that "it resolves the cat's whiskers, but sometimes we lose the cat".

 

Leica's transition started with Mandler's recomputation of the Summicron (Rigid Summicron, 1956) and ended with the surreptitious redesign of the 50mm Summilux in 1961-62. Since then, contrast transfer at line frequencies of 5, 10, 20 and 40 per mm has been the main tool of diagnosis.

 

Contrast at 5 and 10 lp/mm defines the general contrast level of the lens, and a large part of the edge sharpness. 20 lp tells about definition of detail, while 40, which are not often resolved in real, mobile shooting, do give a measure of ultimate 'bite' or crispness. While general contrast (and to some extent edges) can be taken care of later, the low 'microcontrast' of older, 1950's lenses give them a 'smoothness' or blandness that some like. Add to that a bit of flare and edge haloing, and you get the much touted 'Leica glow' which simply means optical deficiencies.

 

What you like is a personal thing. Fit the lens to the purpose. But for general photography, modern is best. Even so, some older lenses, like the v. IV (1979) 35mm Summmicron, and the contemporaneous 90mm 'cron, perform remarkably well with the M8, especially if you can stop them down a notch or two.

 

The old man from the Age of Berek

[Ivar B]

Just out of interest I took some test shots with the M8 and Elmarit-M 2.8/28mm (3rd version 1979 - 1993) and a new Summicron-M 2.0/28mm. I was more than a little surprised to see how superior the Summicron was. Sharpness was much better and not least the contrast was much higher and the difference was there for all to see immediately on the computer screen. Maybe not an entirely fair "competition" and it may be that the Summicron 28 is extraordinarily good rather than that the old 28mm is poor.

 

I also did some test shots with a new Summicron 2.0/50 (coded) and Voigtlander Heliar Clasic 2.0/50 (coded) at various f stops and e-mailed the photos to a few friends of mine and asked if they could see which lens was being used in each case. This turned out to be next to impossible. The Heliar is as good as the Summicron it seems, both optically and with respect to build quality. Not bad for a $400 lens!

[lars_bergquist]

Ivar, I have used that Elmarit, and I now have the Summicron, and I agree with the results of your test. But the Elmarit in its time was deemed to be just about the best 28mm lens you could get – and the Summicron is sensational.

 

The old man from the Age of Berek

[joseph_galilee]

Just out of interest I took some test shots with the M8 and Elmarit-M 2.8/28mm (3rd version 1979 - 1993) and a new Summicron-M 2.0/28mm. I was more than a little surprised to see how superior the Summicron was. Sharpness was much better and not least the contrast was much higher and the difference was there for all to see immediately on the computer screen. Maybe not an entirely fair "competition" and it may be that the Summicron 28 is extraordinarily good rather than that the old 28mm is poor.

 

I also did some test shots with a new Summicron 2.0/50 (coded) and Voigtlander Heliar Clasic 2.0/50 (coded) at various f stops and e-mailed the photos to a few friends of mine and asked if they could see which lens was being used in each case. This turned out to be next to impossible. The Heliar is as good as the Summicron it seems, both optically and with respect to build quality. Not bad for a $400 lens!

 

....... How superior the Summicron was......

Bah!

 

Read what write Andy friend. I agree what he said.

 

 

Andy Piper , Apr 14, 2009; 11:38 a.m.

IMHO the v.3 28 Elmarit is the best of the Leica 28mm M lenses. I have never seen any evidence that the more recent Elmarits, or even the Summicron, actually resolve any more detail - and it has lower macro contrast, which gives more dynamic range with slides or digital.

 

I posted a mini-review of the v.3 28 and some contemporary "Mandler lenses" on the Leica Users Forum - I think you have to register (free) to see the images: (link)

 

Its main disadvantage is the size - it was designed at a time when M bodies did not include the 28 framelines built-in, and thus no particular emphasis was placed on how much it intruded into the viewfinder. It was assumed it would be used with a shoe-mounted accessory finder.

 

In the newer 28s, the optical advances lie in getting the same resolution out of a smaller package (much smaller, in the case of the 28 f/2.8 ASPH), adding more contrast (for carving an image into soft color neg films) and adding a full stop in speed in a smaller package (28 Summicron).

 

As to the parts or the lens shade - I'd contact Dave Elwell at Leica USA (Allendale NJ). He's in charge of parts, and even though that hood is 20+ years out of production, he occasionally comes up with miracles.

 

Andy Piper

andypiper - PORTFOLIOS

[Printmaker]

Part of your question involves early 50 Summicrons. I've owned a few over the years and am currently using a 1969 version 3 50 Summicron. Other than my 135 Elmarit, this 50 is my least used lens. In comparison to a newer 50 this Summicron is not quite as sharp and tends to flare. Yet, under the right conditions, this version Summicron produces the legendary "Leica glow". Color or B&W, this lens has plenty of character and is perfect for photographing people. This lens is small, light and reasonably inexpensive. Definitely worth the space it takes up in a camera bag.

[IWC Doppel]

Kenneth, when building up a set of lenses, these, though slightly out of date, may help:

 

[ATTACH]89996[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]89997[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]89998[/ATTACH]

 

Coming back to your original question, I use what I would term a "palette" of LTM and M mount lenses from Leica, Voigtlander and Canon. Let me explain the logic behind some of my choices. I shall stick to those I mostly use on M-mount cameras, whether LTM or M, because the logic is slightly different for my LTMs:

 

50mm f2.8 Elmar M - Bought new - the sharpest collapsible lens. I'll forgo speed for portability, particularly when travelling. I had a 50mm Summicron 4th version, but prefer this as my normal lens.

 

50mm f2.0 Dual Range Summicron - Bought used, for the unique "look", for the beautiful craftsmanship and for the fact that it "matches" my M2.

 

50mm f1.2 Canon - Bought used - my fastest lens. I neither want nor can justify the cost of a Noctilux for the small amount of low light work I do.

 

Voigtlander 35mm f2.5 Pancake I - Bought new - my primary 35mm. I had a 4th Version Summicron, but prefer the handling and contrasty performance of the Voigtlander.

 

75mm f2.5 Colour Heliar - bought new when the only other choice was the 75mm Summilux. I like this focal length, and this lens and if I was starting out again I would go for the 75mm Summicron, but there is not enough difference for me to make the trade.

 

135mm f3.5 Canon - bought used - I had the last model Tele-Elmarit-M f4.0, and flirted briefly with the f2.8 years ago. The Canon is lighter and faster than the first, and considerably lighter than the second. I would like a 3.4 APO but they are like hen's teeth, and the Canon is an exceptional performer.

 

I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. The lenses I have mentioned, new or used, are all bought for a reason, and not just for cost. Similarly, the money I have spent on my IIIc, IID, CLAs and associated lenses could have gone a long way to financing an M8.

 

It's not always about the fastest, or the sharpest, or the newest. For me, at least, it is 80% about the desired result and 20% about the sheer joy of using fine machinery that challenges me to use it well.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

Time for an update, nice table