shaozhuohong Posted June 29, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 29, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, Someone told me that the colour of a photo taken by a modern leica lens is a little bit different from its taken by a classical one: Classical lens (before 1960): smooth/natural colour, low contrast. Modern lens (after 1970): valid colour, high contrast. Is that true? In my experience, I own a 50mm summicron-m Rigid which was built in 1962, the colour of its photos does look like some old photos. thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 29, 2009 Posted June 29, 2009 Hi shaozhuohong, Take a look here Does Leica lens divide into classical colour and modern colour?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
shaozhuohong Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share #2 Posted June 29, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted June 29, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 29, 2009 The photo #2 gives us room to guess. Is it an "old" or a "new" lens? Perhaps one could start a thread with photos taken by Leitz/Leica lenses of very different ages without telling which one it was. This could give more information about the real differences than many opinions. Two examples: One lense is more than sixty years older than the other: [ATTACH]149658[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]149659[/ATTACH] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 29, 2009 Share #4 Posted June 29, 2009 Hi, Someone told me that the colour of a photo taken by a modern leica lens is a little bit different from its taken by a classical one: Classical lens (before 1960): smooth/natural colour, low contrast. Modern lens (after 1970): valid colour, high contrast. Is that true? In my experience, I own a 50mm summicron-m Rigid which was built in 1962, the colour of its photos does look like some old photos. thanks What about lenses made after 1960 and before 1970? The very latest Leica lenses like the 35 Summicron ASPH are contrasty and very sharp, whereas the older lenses will have a slightly softer less contrasty look to then in general. What kind of lens would you say made this photo, older or newer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaozhuohong Posted June 29, 2009 Author Share #5 Posted June 29, 2009 What about lenses made after 1960 and before 1970? The very latest Leica lenses like the 35 Summicron ASPH are contrasty and very sharp, whereas the older lenses will have a slightly softer less contrasty look to then in general. What kind of lens would you say made this photo, older or newer? I have no idea of the lenses made between 1960-1970 So, what I heard was ture, because you mentioned "older lenses will have a slightly softer less contrasty" I guess the photo in #4 was taken by newer lens. BTW. I took the photo in #2 in Paris one week ago, I feel the colour is in olde style and the lens i use was made in 1962. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentleman Villain Posted June 30, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 30, 2009 The new line of Summarits have a muted contrast that is a more similar look to the lenses of yesteryear....Take a stroll through the summarit gallery on the main Leica website and you might be able to see a bit of their older style signature. I really like the look of the new summarits and am actually more interested in them than the newer crons and luxes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 30, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 30, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) The only sensible comparison would be the same subject at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
budrichard Posted June 30, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 30, 2009 Usually individuals and dealers selling 'classical' lenses will tell you that they are better than newer lenses whatever the parameter being discussed. Since the parameter is highly subjective it can not be proved or disproved which is what the seller wants.-Dick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted June 30, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 30, 2009 So, what I heard was ture, because you mentioned "older lenses will have a slightly softer less contrasty" I guess the photo in #4 was taken by newer lens My photo in #4 was with a 1940's uncoated Elmar 5cm (no special PS processing). However as Jaap says you need to compare side by side with other lenses. I've no doubt the same image with a new Summicron would look different, but the point is that it's all relative. Generally older lenses are less contrasty than the latest designs, but older lenses may also have no or single or different coatings, they may have some internal dust/haze which could affect performance to some degree, there are lots of variables. Ulitmately, one is not better than the other, its a case of personal preference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danmitch Posted June 30, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 30, 2009 Having used both older lenses including first rigid 50 summicron and 135 tele-elmar as well as newer lenses such as the 35 summicron ASPH, I feel the difference is more one of contrast and flare resistance than colour. As James's picture above shows, saturation can still be high with older lenses as can colour accuracy, this falls away quickly though when shooting towards a light source or bright area. I also think there is a tendancy to use the built in or supplied lens hoods on newer lenses, these are often lost or not used on older optics and will seriously effect the photograph. Best - Dan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted June 30, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 30, 2009 The difference is not in colour transmission, which is very neutral in both older and modern lenses (notable exception: Noctilux 1:1 which is slightly warm). It is a lower general contrast level, and a higher level of flare in the 'classical' lenses, which both lead to more desaturated colour. Add to that a higher level of residual optical aberrations (coma, astigmatism, spherical, lateral colour) which produce the much-vaunted "Leica glow" -- which is also a Zeiss, Nikon, Canon etc. glow, as long as you keep to optics of the same general era, say, before 1980. Lack of coating, as with a pre-WW II lens with a bayonet adapter, raises the flare level even higher of course. For those who may want to explore the look of 'classical' Leica lenses with a minimum of outlay and aggravation, my advice is to find a first version (1958--74) 50mm Elmar 1:2.8 in bayonet mount. This is an intriguing little lens and it can be had at under 200 euros. You may come to like it as a portrait lens. The old man from the Age of the M3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted July 2, 2009 Share #12 Posted July 2, 2009 .... For those who may want to explore the look of 'classical' Leica lenses with a minimum of outlay and aggravation, my advice is to find a first version (1958--74) 50mm Elmar 1:2.8 in bayonet mount. This is an intriguing little lens and it can be had at under 200 euros. You may come to like it as a portrait lens. The old man from the Age of the M3 Agree with the above for everyone who want the taste of an old lens (but not a prehistoric one ) ; as a personal advice, I'd add also an Elmar 90 f4 : they are common, cheap, compact, fine old teles . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted July 2, 2009 Share #13 Posted July 2, 2009 For some reason, I like this image a lot. Sharpness, saturation and contrast are all overrated 'virtues' in modern lenses imho. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.