Beginner with M system cameras .. seeking advice and tips

[Indecisive]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

recently bought myself a M8 and started with a "cheap" Zeiss 35mm lens to test the water and see how I get on with it. I absolutely love the fact that the camera is less sophisticated than the Canon DSLR that I had and requires me to upgrade my photographic skills.

 

I want to start getting a few more lenses and wonder if people can offer some insights from personal ownership of the equipment. I am most likely to get second hand.

 

First question is the difference between the Lux (1.4), Cron (2.0) Summarit(2.5) and Elmarit (2.8) lenses of the same focal range. From preliminary searches, it seems it is more than just the aperature setting. Somehow the images they produce are different. How different or what is different? Say you shot at 2.8 on all four lenses?

 

Second question is around keywords or books recommendations. I see that Leica has made various different "generations" of the same lens. There seems to be a price differential between them in the 2nd hand market place. What's the best way to find out the history of the various versions made in the past?

 

I am currently looking to add a 75mm lens and undecided on which one. The summarit is the best price. whilst the summicron and summilux can be had for similar price. If you can get the Lux (1.4) for the same money is it better to go for that? I know physically it is a bigger lens.

 

Thanks in advance for your advice

[luigi bertolotti]

Welcome to the forum ! Your questions could sprout a big number of answers ... discussing lenses is one of the bread-and-butter of this forum...

 

So I start with books... probably the best about lenses' history is James Lager's volume on lenses (Leica illustrated history vol. 2 - easy to find - not cheap but worths the cost). This, just for history and to understand well why is normal, hereby, that you find references to things like "Summicron 35 IV" or "Summilux 35 pre-asph" and so; it does not deal of specific lenses characters: about this,a well known book is "Leica lenses: their soul and secrets" by Erwin Puts - not difficult to find even if I seem to remember a complex editorial issue... for a certain time it could be also downloaded from the Net... Anyway, Puts maintains a well known site ( Home) and you can ask him about this interesting book.

 

About 75s : I bought, for my M8, the Summarit 75 and am completely satisfied with it: almost anyone who tested it vs. the Summicron says that there are not appreciable differences when both used around 2,8 to 5,6: of course, f2 is a plus and another plus is the embedded/retractable hood of the Summicron : the only little annoying feature from my Summarit is that the hood is screw-in : if you want to store it in a small space, you have to dismount the hood,,, and without hood and UVIR filter on, the lens cap (for the hood) does not fit. The max aperture of the Summilux is an exciting feature... but surely in many situations focusing at 1,4 can be critical.

 

And... I leave to something else the disquisition on 50s of 1,4 2 2,5 2,8 ... remember that you can find also 50s at f 0,95 and f1... (and there is also a "cheap" 50 f1,1 from Voigtlander...)

[jjjjuin]

[Indecisive]

Thanks for the advice guys.

 

Maybe I will start with the cheaper lens. My previous canon L lenses were f2.8 so it should be fine. Given it seems you are only paying extra for the larger aperture.

 

The Noctulux is way too much money for my budget and probably too specialised for what I need.

[andybarton]

I don't know where jjjjuin got that table from, but Leica do not make any "weak" lenses.

 

And there is so much more difference between them than just the maximum aperture. Every one has a different "signature"

 

Have a look through the Photo section here, or do a search on Flickr for the various lenses to see how they perform differently.

[Overgaard]

I don't know where jjjjuin got that table from, but Leica do not make any "weak" lenses.

 

And there is so much more difference between them than just the maximum aperture. Every one has a different "signature"

 

Have a look through the Photo section here, or do a search on Flickr for the various lenses to see how they perform differently.

 

I'll have one of those Noctilux f/5.6 lenses if there's anymore left

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First I must insist that there are no 'entry level' or 'basic' Leica lenses. The company hangs its reputation on each of them. During a half-century, optical technology has of course advanced greatly, but modern or 'semi-modern' Leica lenses are all really very good.

 

You are right that monickers such as 'Elmar', 'Elmarit', 'Summicron' and 'Summilux' are speed designations and nothing else. Now there are of course subtle differences between how even different Leica lenses 'draw', but they are very difficult to demonstrate and impossible to quantify, though unfortunately very easy to talk loosely about. The major differences (beyond different focal lengths / fields of view of course) come from different maximum apertures. A picture taken at f:1.4 will inevitably have more unsharp parts than one at f:5.6 even with the very same lens!

 

Lots of the ambient noise comes from certain people who simply do not like very sharp lenses, condemning them as 'harsh' and expatiating on their 'bad bokeh', which is simply a catch-all phrase for everything that you dislike. (Bokeh proper is a Japanese term for the quality, pleasant or unpleasant, of the kind of unsharpness that a lens creates.) The remedy is simple: Rustle up a 1950's Leica lens and enjoy the 'Leica glow', meaning the high level of residual optical aberrations ... especially spherical.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica Glow (slightly singed)

[Indecisive]

First I must insist that there are no 'entry level' or 'basic' Leica lenses. The company hangs its reputation on each of them. During a half-century, optical technology has of course advanced greatly, but modern or 'semi-modern' Leica lenses are all really very good.

 

You are right that monickers such as 'Elmar', 'Elmarit', 'Summicron' and 'Summilux' are speed designations and nothing else. Now there are of course subtle differences between how even different Leica lenses 'draw', but they are very difficult to demonstrate and impossible to quantify, though unfortunately very easy to talk loosely about. The major differences (beyond different focal lengths / fields of view of course) come from different maximum apertures. A picture taken at f:1.4 will inevitably have more unsharp parts than one at f:5.6 even with the very same lens!

 

Lots of the ambient noise comes from certain people who simply do not like very sharp lenses, condemning them as 'harsh' and expatiating on their 'bad bokeh', which is simply a catch-all phrase for everything that you dislike. (Bokeh proper is a Japanese term for the quality, pleasant or unpleasant, of the kind of unsharpness that a lens creates.) The remedy is simple: Rustle up a 1950's Leica lens and enjoy the 'Leica glow', meaning the high level of residual optical aberrations ... especially spherical.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica Glow (slightly singed)

 

 

Would you be able to post a link to some of your photos showing this leica glow so I could get a better understanding?

 

Thanks in advance!

[kenneth]

Thanks for the advice guys.

 

Maybe I will start with the cheaper lens. My previous canon L lenses were f2.8 so it should be fine. Given it seems you are only paying extra for the larger aperture.

 

The Noctulux is way too much money for my budget and probably too specialised for what I need.

 

Leica is all about the lenses. The body is just a box with a shutter mechanism. I favour the Summicron lenses having a 35mm asph and a 50mm both in chrome. The Summilux are fine lenses but you are paying a vast amount more for them and unless you need that amount of light gathering the Summicrons are fine. Also Leica lenses work superbly fully open so you do not need to stop down to get performance

[andybarton]

A few examples from lenses that I have owned over the years.

 

 

This one was shot with a 35 Summilux (pre-ASPH) (Cost around £750)

 

 

as was this one

 

 

Note the "glow" on both of these, shot wide open

 

This was with a 35 Summicron ASPH (most modern version) (Cost around £1000) on an M2, wide open again, I guessed the exposure and the focussing

 

 

Here's another one from the same lens. M2 again, wide open

 

[andybarton]

and another

 

 

The latest 35 Summicron ASPH is an outstanding lens in every respect.

 

This is an example of a 35 Summaron, f3.5, from 1956 (Cost about £250)

 

 

and another

 

 

and another

 

 

I will try to find examples taken with my f2.8 Summaron

[Indecisive]

Thank you Andy for posting those. I can see what you mean. I find the images from the older lenses very pleasing. I might give one a try THANKS!

[andybarton]

If you do buy an older lens, make sure it's clean and free from major scratches, dust and especially fungus.

 

If you buy one, and don't like it, you won't lose much money on it, as there is always a demand for decent older lenses.

 

My advice would be to find a nice 35 Summaron f2.8. Don't buy one with goggles, unless you are using an M3, btw.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Please consider acquiring the 280 page "Leica Pocket Book 7th Edition" which lists and illustrates ALL Leica lenses made from approx. 1924 to c.2000 together with their MTF charts - it's one of the best Leica books available and relatively inexpensive - but make sure you look at the 7th Edition and not the previous editions which are less comprehensive. The book also lists and illustrates all Leica cameras made during the same period.

 

Cheers

 

dunk

[lars_bergquist]

Would you be able to post a link to some of your photos showing this leica glow so I could get a better understanding?

 

Thanks in advance!

Andy Barton has already done it, and better than I could do it -- I sold that 35mm Summilux in disgust and got myself the ASPH version. That was in the Kodachrome Age. Nowadays, I would not need all that speed, and I would have gone for the Summicron instead.

 

The old man from the Age of the Leica Glow (still with a faint burnt odour)

[lars_bergquist]

Leica is all about the lenses. The body is just a box with a shutter mechanism.

Yes, film Leicas, or in fact any non-reflex film camera. In the digital age, the camera is the film too.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[jjjjuin]

I don't know where jjjjuin got that table from, but Leica do not make any "weak" lenses.

 

And there is so much more difference between them than just the maximum aperture. Every one has a different "signature"

 

Have a look through the Photo section here, or do a search on Flickr for the various lenses to see how they perform differently.

 

ha, i know i know,

i suppose that means 'RELATIVELY' weak barely.

anyway,

I have no evidence to support this table, just realized I had seen one before which may help him.

[luigi bertolotti]

Andy... Mrs. Barton & old Summaron 35 in kitchen... splendid pair of pics.

[vdb]

Andy, love your "sample" images. A great example of Leica 'glow'.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Shootist]

If you are looking for a 50mm lens don't fool around with the Summicron (f/2), Elmar (f/2.8) or Summarit (f/2.5), although all of them are great lenses, go directly to the Summilux (f/1.4) ASPH and don't look back.

 

Whether you can find one used is another story.