scaryink Posted June 4, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 4, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Call me confused. These issues of which lens is " the best" seems to be very Leica-centric. The "best" is invariably equated to edge to edge sharpness, and contrast. These two issues are not considered the most important points in LF and MF world or in non reportage 35mm. As a matter of fact uncoated, soft focus lenses are considered highly desirable for figurative work. The swirly's you get from a lens that doesn't quite cover the format is often considered a wonderful effect. To me, extreme sharpness is essential for guillotines and samurais not for good photography. The thread on the zeiss 50 sonnar vs summilux is typical of this group think. In my experience most women don't want every skin defect and flaw detailed with exquisite accuracy. I find the m8 and all rangefinders wonderful for non-intrusive shooting and am far less interested in having the sharpest lens made for 35mm and comparable formats. The zeiss 50 1.5 sonnar is one magnificent and flexible lens. There are far more looks you can get from this lens than the 50 AA summilux which is really about being very sharp wide-open to minimum f stop. The sonnar is actually quite similar to my Cooke PS945 which considered one of the most desirable modern LF lenses. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 4, 2009 Posted June 4, 2009 Hi scaryink, Take a look here M8 and armchair Napoleons. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
johnastovall Posted June 4, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 4, 2009 To paraphase Col. Townsend Whelen, "Only sharp lenses are interesting." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 4, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 4, 2009 Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with the concept that the " best" lens is the one that fits the ideas of the photographer best and not necessarily the sharpest lens, I disagree with the statement that the quest for sharpness is Leica- specific. It is rather the opposite. When I go into other forums lens discussions always revolve around sharpness, contrast and resolution. Only in the Leica forums do I see discussions about the "fingerprint" of lenses or indeed discussions about lenses that are over half a century old. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshore Posted June 4, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 4, 2009 Call me confused. These issues of which lens is " the best" seems to be very Leica-centric. The "best" is invariably equated to edge to edge sharpness, and contrast. These two issues are not considered the most important points in LF and MF world or in non reportage 35mm. As a matter of fact uncoated, soft focus lenses are considered highly desirable for figurative work. The swirly's you get from a lens that doesn't quite cover the format is often considered a wonderful effect. To me, extreme sharpness is essential for guillotines and samurais not for good photography. The thread on the zeiss 50 sonnar vs summilux is typical of this group think. In my experience most women don't want every skin defect and flaw detailed with exquisite accuracy. I find the m8 and all rangefinders wonderful for non-intrusive shooting and am far less interested in having the sharpest lens made for 35mm and comparable formats. The zeiss 50 1.5 sonnar is one magnificent and flexible lens. There are far more looks you can get from this lens than the 50 AA summilux which is really about being very sharp wide-open to minimum f stop. The sonnar is actually quite similar to my Cooke PS945 which considered one of the most desirable modern LF lenses. Ok, you're confused. Happy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puplet Posted June 4, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 4, 2009 What's wrong with sharp pictures of women? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PavelDerka Posted June 5, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 5, 2009 Women look good soft too .... come to think of it ... women simply look gooood ... no matter what else. Nice points here. it is the pictures character that makes the shot. But it is not a Leica centric thing. But only the Leica lenses make it possible, the rest only wish. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 5, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 5, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not that these kinds of arguments aren't beyond me, but what's really beyond me is how this gem of contention is M8-specific. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty Posted June 5, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 5, 2009 You can create soft images with a sharp lens but you can't create sharp images with a soft lens. But why worry? I thought this year's world press photo winner was wonderful evidence that sharpness, technical perfection and the latest kit are not critical at all. Just let it go, remember what happened to Napoleon... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted June 5, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 5, 2009 He's right that sharp lenses become a serious problem when photographing people. The solution to this is to have multiple lenses in the same focal length and have at least one lens available that's pleasing for portraits. There is no such thing as a do-everything/ one-size-fits all lens....so it's best to own multiple lenses in a similar focal length and choose the right one for the given situation. Available light photographers should have multiple lenses at their side....since there will inevitably be available lighting situations that call for lower contrast, or speed, small size, pleasing skintones etc Photographers that rely on studio/location lighting can usually get away with owning a single lens in a given focal length because they can adapt their lighting to fit the situation. They can add or subtract contrast, create pleasing skintones etc by manipulating the lighting. Available light photographers are the ones that are really at the mercy of what their lens can provide....so they should just own multiple lenses (if possible) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #10 Posted June 5, 2009 The M8 comment was not a red herring. The digital forum seems much more obsessed with this issue "what is THE best lens" than film shooters. I agree that you may need a multiple of lenses in a certain focal length depending on the need. The point is that one is not "better" than another. One may be sharper, one have a pleasing glow, one better for flat field reproduction. It is also funny that the difficult question of which bag to use for your M8 remains on the M8 forum. How on earth is this specific to only the m8 is beyond me. Who cares really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzav Posted June 5, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 5, 2009 He's right that sharp lenses become a serious problem when photographing people. The solution to this is to have multiple lenses in the same focal length and have at least one lens available that's pleasing for portraits. There is no such thing as a do-everything/ one-size-fits all lens....so it's best to own multiple lenses in a similar focal length and choose the right one for the given situation. Available light photographers should have multiple lenses at their side....since there will inevitably be available lighting situations that call for lower contrast, or speed, small size, pleasing skintones etc Photographers that rely on studio/location lighting can usually get away with owning a single lens in a given focal length because they can adapt their lighting to fit the situation. They can add or subtract contrast, create pleasing skintones etc by manipulating the lighting. Available light photographers are the ones that are really at the mercy of what their lens can provide....so they should just own multiple lenses (if possible) If you shoot film or have unlimited funds and wish to collect a selection of 50mm lenses (or 35mm, etc.) this approach makes sense, but with digital, you can easily duplicate the look of an old lens in Photoshop. There are numerous plug-ins available to make these effects even easier to reproduce and some even allow you to select the number of diaphragm blades to refine your interpretation of the image. You can introduce lens flare, change depth-of field, and much more in post processing. Furthermore, you can selectively apply the effects on any part of the image, only your skills are the limiting factor today. While creating the effect of a 40 or 50-year old lens with a current ASPH lens is not that difficult, and certainly not impossible, there is no amount of digital manipulation that will replace the detail a current ASPH lens will capture. The entire premise of the M8 and updated lenses is capturing maximum detail. From the new lens formulas to the absence of an AA filter and a thinner IR/UV cut-off filter over the sensor, the M8 is all about resolution and maximum image quality. There is a lot to be said for starting with the best possible image quality that current technology can deliver. I shoot a lot of available light (as well as studio lighting), and never feel I am "at the mercy of what my lens can provide...." despite the fact that most of my Leica lenses are current ASPH versions. One lens that I had from my film days that produced a look I thought would be hard to duplicate was the 35mm pre-ASPH Summilux. I really loved that lens, but I can reproduce its character with the current 35mm Summilux ASPH anytime I wish to do so. If you can quantify the effect a certain lens gave you, reproducing it with a modern formula lens should not be too challenging. In anticipation of responses against image manipulation, I should note some of the most famous 35mm photojournalists, like Eugene Smith, spent days and (often) weeks working on prints from their negatives before they were satisfied. Usually, it was to correct or minimize the lens flaws of their contemporary optics that some of us find endearing today. Other famous photographers, like HCB, sent their negatives to custom printers who did the work for them. I am not arguing for or against the look of older optics, just saying you can achieve the same look with current Leica optics without needing a shelf full of redundant focal lengths... I am not saying you are wrong, only giving my POV. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 5, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 5, 2009 ... but with digital, you can easily duplicate the look of an old lens in Photoshop. No. You can't. IMHO Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #13 Posted June 5, 2009 nzav you can manipulate through photoshop or a plug in, an imitation but its just that - a cheap imitation. There is simply no way you can get it to "look like the real thing. " There is a huge amount of optical complexity going on with a true soft focus lens or one that swirls at the limits of coverage. It certainly isn't only some sort of blurriness or vignette. The z axis is rendered sharp and soft at the same time, the rendering is different at varying depths. This is especially true, when focus is in between near and far elements of an image. Now on the screen it may look acceptable but certainly not in a printed format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #14 Posted June 5, 2009 If you go to other forums, or hang around with photographers in real life, esp. those who started photography within the past decade, it seems that photography in part now revolves around getting the latest camera and the sharpest lens. Really wonderful image RichC. !! Very evocative. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted June 5, 2009 Share #15 Posted June 5, 2009 i'm still waiting to see an M8 / Noctilux combination that carries over the fingerprint from film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 5, 2009 Share #16 Posted June 5, 2009 "but with digital, you can easily duplicate the look of an old lens in Photoshop" Indeed - I produce M8/35 Summicron files from my Panasonic digicam with a few quick Photoshop tweaks, bit of blur to emulate depth of field, tweak the curves, sharpen it up and its done. Why bother paying all that money when you can do it for free?! If I want an MP/Summicron/Tri X file I just add a bit of noise and up the contrast then desaturate. Nocitlux lens? add a heap of background blur and use the smudge tool to emulate the shorter dof and unique qualities of this beast. Digital does it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #17 Posted June 5, 2009 "but with digital, you can easily duplicate the look of an old lens in Photoshop" Indeed - I produce M8/35 Summicron files from my Panasonic digicam with a few quick Photoshop tweaks, bit of blur to emulate depth of field, tweak the curves, sharpen it up and its done. Why bother paying all that money when you can do it for free?! Digital does it all. Heck yeah James. Check this ultra-realistic manip thats so easy from photoshop. I just picked up any old photo of a fairly recognizable personality. Photoshop can give you a quality that is almost as good as a velvet Elvis painting. File two was a little quick mask, magical photoshop lens blur (the secret sauce) and alot of warming filter applied. Those guyz at adobe are geniuses. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/86996-m8-and-armchair-napoleons/?do=findComment&comment=922302'>More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 5, 2009 Share #18 Posted June 5, 2009 Digital does it all. I've just put all my Leica gear on eBay. After all, why bother? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzav Posted June 5, 2009 Share #19 Posted June 5, 2009 Heck yeah James. Check this ultra-realistic manip thats so easy from photoshop. I just picked up any old photo of a fairly recognizable personality. Photoshop can give you a quality that is almost as good as a velvet Elvis painting. File two was a little quick mask, magical photoshop lens blur (the secret sauce) and alot of warming filter applied. Those guyz at adobe are geniuses. With the aptitude you have just demonstrated, heck, you should write a book on Photoshop, or at the very least do seminars!!! If you are trying to prove a point, I'm afraid it is lost... If I were you I would save my money and stick to Adobe Elements -- judging from your demonstration, anything more advanced would is completely wasted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scaryink Posted June 5, 2009 Author Share #20 Posted June 5, 2009 Nzav don't you think that my image manip is perfect? Actual optics are easily reproducible in photoshop right? This is my interpretation of the version 1 Noctilux. Its so easy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.