Older lenses on M8

[edinsiam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I keep on hearing very contradictory opinions on this. Somebody says that older lenses just do not render on an M8 and that the new asphericals are the way to go; somebody else says that the new aspherical lenses, do not retain detail due to their higher contrast because the glass is of a much lower quality altogether. Then, of course there also is that "old magic" issue that many talk about... What do you guys think?

[stunsworth]

Most people are biased towards what they already own. Old and new work fine.

[lars_bergquist]

Older lenses are of course different, because optical technology has advanced considerably these past fifty years. The oldies do generally have lower contrast, somewhat lower resolution, and more flare than current lenses, which are of course technically superior. The older the lenses are--and with the proper thread-to-bayonet adapter, you can fit a lens from 1932 and have it focus correctly--the more pronounced is the difference of course.

 

Still, some quite old designs hung on for amazing spans of production, e.g. the 1962 50mm Summilux which was not discontinued until 2004, and is still sought after by some. For all depends of course on how you want your pictures to look. Some people like the 'classical look'. And some people do have an oldie around for those times when their look is appropriate.

 

The old man from the Age of Max Berek

[plasticman]

And some people do have an oldie around for those times when their look is appropriate.

 

Because of the lower contrast and usually also the lower sharpness, many photographers will prefer to use an 'oldie' when the subject is likewise.

[adan]

I certainly would not call the glass in the new ASPHs "of a much lower quality altogether"

 

- but I have come to the conclusion that I personally won't use anything but the lenses designed by Walter Mandler at Leitz Canada. (although usually the "latest" versions he designed, in general, c. 1980). In solving the riddles of optical design, he just made choices that more closely match my preferences in terms of overall contrast, micro-contrasts, color rendition, and other factors.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/45854-praise-mandler-lenses.html

 

"Old magic"? Not especially. They are competent, clear, sharp lenses - in no way to be lumped with the Hektors and Summars and original Elmars of pre-1965.

 

The newer lenses are at least equally clear and sharp (often in smaller packages - 28 f/2.8 ASPH, 21 f/2.8 ASPH) But I do think the lower overall contrast of the Mandler lenses is a plus on any medium - it gives the mid-tone contrasts and micro-contrasts a chance to shine through.

 

I think the M8 is completely capable of capturing the character of both the oldest and newest designs (see my pix from ASPH/non-ASPH 50 lux on the "50 Lux what is it" thread.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/81011-50-lux-what.html

 

I've shot, for example, the 75 Summicron ASPH and the 50 Summicron (current, but designed by W. M. in 1979) together on: M8, Velvia, Ilford Pan F, Ilford XP2 - and I always prefer the rendering of the 50 'cron. But it is hardly "classic' - just competent.

[jaapv]

I keep on hearing very contradictory opinions on this. Somebody says that older lenses just do not render on an M8 and that the new asphericals are the way to go; somebody else says that the new aspherical lenses, do not retain detail due to their higher contrast because the glass is of a much lower quality altogether. Then, of course there also is that "old magic" issue that many talk about... What do you guys think?

I think these kind of generalisations are nonsense. Choose a lens for its fingerprint, not for the date of manufacture...

[andit]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Personally I think that it is nonsense to say that old lenses do not perform on the M8. Most of my lenses come out of the early 80's and are brilliant (just had a look they all come from Canada). The only time that you will really see differences is once you start using the non coated lenses (if I remember right prior to 1952). Even these lenses however are extremely sharp, but can exhibit flare, pincushion distortion, are maybe a bit soft wide open etc - even these lenses though are very usable.

 

As Jaap has said above, it depends on what look you prefer, clinically sharp or beautiful rendering - almost like painting with light. It comes down to personal preference.

 

Andreas

[epand56]

This was made with a 32 yo Summicron-C 40mm on the M8.

It is not a Summilux Asph for sure, but neither is the bottom of a bottle. And this is a lowered down Jpeg, you should see the original Raw...

I think the problem with old lenses may depend on the good or bad condition of the glass.

 

[UliWer]

It is one of the big advantages of the Leica M that you can use new as well as old Leica M and screw-mount lenses almost without any limits. The M8 gives many possibilities to make good use of the old-timers as it "cuts off" the "bad" outer parts (vignetting) of some old lenses and it's sensor will perhaps react sometimes more easygoing on lenses with low contrasts as on some extremely contrasty new versions.

 

Therefore it would be great if we had more opportunities to see photos taken with the old lenses as we presently have. Unfortunately we see many more pics showing these lenses (which are great!) than pics made with these lenses. For instance: who has ever seen a photo taken by a 5-cm Hektor?

 

I had a try on a 7,3-cm Hektor lately - rather quick and dirty- but perhaps it tells just a little bit about an almost forgotten lens:

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-sammler-historica/79893-hektor-1-1-9-73-cm.html#post834883

 

Using those lenses may have many warts and all, but perhaps it's like listening to music recorded at the times of 78 r/pm: in spite of much crackling and distortion hearing a Lotte Lehmann singing may be much more revealing than listening to some Netrebkos of today (of course we have many modern musicians which are no Netrebkos as well as we have many modern lenses which are excellent).

[luigi bertolotti]

I keep on hearing very contradictory opinions on this. Somebody says that older lenses just do not render on an M8 and that the new asphericals are the way to go; somebody else says that the new aspherical lenses, do not retain detail due to their higher contrast because the glass is of a much lower quality altogether. Then, of course there also is that "old magic" issue that many talk about... What do you guys think?

 

Me too think is a "no issue" ... Leitz made a lot of good lenses for decades... undoubtly my Summicron 35 asph is "better" than my Cron 35 8 elements, undoubtly my Summarit 75 is "very much better" than my Hektor 73 of 1932... but if you LIKE how a certain lens draws an image, who cares ? We amateurs seldom have to shot...let'say ... art reproduction, where if you haven't top sharpness , simply the work isn't rightly done: we try to take some pics that have the right character for the subject, environment etc... and this can be achieved fine even with an "oldie".

I also add that with digital PP, if one finds that a certain modern lens is "too sharp" it's rather easy to adjust ... it's always possible to destroy information... but this does not necessarly mean that you can recap the fingerprint of some "oldie"... we saw a number of examples in the forum.

[Jamie Roberts]

If I could afford to keep *all* my M glass I'd keep them all; they all have something to offer (but then that's why I'm selling some older ones...)

 

Like Andy, I think Mandler's designs are fabulous (for the R lenses too). But the current R and M 50s are probably the best, optically, in the world for 35mm cameras.

 

Even with selling my 90 pre-ASPH 'cron, I have an old Tele Elmarit 90 FAT that just about breaks my heart (good thing) in the way it renders. Does it flare? To beat the band; the newer 90s don't at all by comparison. But the combination of contrast and colour and bokeh in good light makes me love it anyway.

 

The 21 I just sold (bless its heart) was a pre-ASPH lens as well but I loved the way it responded to backlight (flare again) and was very nice on the M8.

 

I have an old Canadian 75 Lux, it's also fabulous.

 

OTH, the current 35 Lux, 28 Cron, 90 AA and 50 Lux are all brilliant too... but different "brushes"...

 

It's great that the M system gives you so many options, IMO.

[michali]

Here's a pic of my dog taken with a 1948 135mm f4.5 Hektor lens with the M8 via a VisoflexIII mount.

 

Sharp in the centre, softer towards the outer edges, can be very appealing, depends on what look you're after.

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!

[microview]

Summaron 35 3.5 about 60 years old, serviced by Malcolm Taylor last month. Prone to flare with some corner vignetting, but in total cost (incl recoating/recalibration) less than £400.

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!

[adan]

I think these kind of generalisations are nonsense. Choose a lens for its fingerprint, not for the date of manufacture...

 

But jaapv, there is very often a correlation between "fingerprint" and "date".

 

Changes in glass types available, changes in computation methods (hand vs. calculator, vs. computer vs. ray tracing), changes in design philosophy, changes in manufacturing techniques and tolerances - all are date-related and all have an impact on "fingerprint".

 

Berek, Mandler, Kölsch, Farbe - different eras, different design goals, different tools, different materials = different fingerprints.

 

--------------

 

I also meant to add to my previous post - but my computer suffered a narcoleptic fit.

 

1. I make a definite exception for the 35 f/1.4 ASPH, and to some extent for the 50 f/1.4 ASPH. Mostly, I suspect, because the extreme demands of an f/1.4 lens tends to moderate their "modern" fingerprint a bit. And the 35 is so clearly an advance over the pre-ASPH f/1.4 in crushing coma/astigmatism wide open.

 

2. I have had "flare" issues of one kind or another with ASPH lenses just as with non-ASPH. Center hot spots from the 28 and 75 'crons on the M8 (in which the sensor plays a role, of course) and mirror images of bright lights within the frame with the 35 'lux ASPH (on film, no filter). The flare characteristics of ASPHs are different from the older lenses, but not non-existent.

[jaapv]

But jaapv, there is very often a correlation between "fingerprint" and "date". .

 

 

But not this kind of correlation:

 

Somebody says that older lenses just do not render on an M8 and that the new asphericals are the way to go;

 

There is also a correlation between lens design and fingerprint, but it is equally nonsensical to say " a double-gauss wideangle does not render on the M8, retrofocus is the way to go"

 

If I may generalize: due to the exact nature of a sensor the M8 enhances the diffference in character between various lenses, old and, new and will give the user more choice in using lens characteristics creatively, thus giving old lenses a new lease on life. There are many more photographers using old glass on the M8 for artistic reasons than there ever were on film M-s.

[innerimager]

I have indulged myself in many of the newer lenses but find my 50 rigid cron is really one ofthe best lenses on my M8. My 50 lux asph lives on my M7 and it's of course outstanding on the M8 but the lower.contrast of the cron gives better DR on the M8, the bokeh is gorgeous, and while Im waiting for the focus action on the lux to break I'm, that 1957 cron is smooth as silk. Just the thought of using a 22 year old lens whose mechanical quality is so good is a great pleasure.

[edinsiam]

Thank you for all your answers, you have turned this thread into a very interesting and stimulating debate. Thank you for the photos that many of you kindly uploaded as well - it was very pleasant and informative to see with my own eyes how these "oldies" perform on an M8.

 

I am aware that I started this thread with some generalisations, and, as many pointed out, I know that the issue (like most issues in art) is very subjective, however as it is impossible for me to try many lenses, the best way I can think of for fulfilling my curiosity is asking for others' opinions, and subjective responses was therefore everything I was hoping for.

 

Ed