Do Leica lenses have "built-in sunshine"?

[chip j]

That's what I read in an old Leica review.

 

[AgX]

A german lens needs the right german musik to go by:

 

[zanxion72]

I think about the distinctive Leica glow on some lenses. Sometimes I swear I can see it on photos taken with my Elmar 50mm 2.8 (M mount), but I have not yet figured out how it happens. It looks like some short of vigneting, but it is not. For sure it is not flare.

 

[AgX]

The only vignetting that affects bokeh is the mechanical one. And that would show in the shape of out-of-focus highlights at the image periphery at wide apertures.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is that sophistry for flare issues (Leica is not immune) & internal fogging?

Or for the aberrations that characterise the wide-open behaviour of the 35mm pre-asph. Summilux?

I suspect that apart from that lens, you'd be hard pressed to tell if something was shot on a Leica or not - you'd be relying on socio-historical contexts to arrive at a supposition. And even then, recognising the oddities of the aforementioned lens requires actually having used one, or printed from negs shot with one.

 

[removed account4]

That's what I read in an old Leica review.

hi chipj

its just advertising, like "good to the last drop"
(and i've had maxweelll haus that wasn't that great ... )
sorry to hammer the leica mythos but i have seen plenty of
oh-hummm photos made with the german product.

 

[Helinophoto]

One of mine has built-in radiation, it may be from a piece of sun, that has been trough various fusion-stages and is now in the Thorium -> lead decay-stage.

This Leica-glow thing has been around for decades, thus it must refer to the older lenses, the newer ones are so perfect and expensive that they have absolutely nothing but detail, bokeh and sharpness.
I have only older lenses and apart from said radiation, none of mine (Summicron dual M and Summicron collapsible LTM ) have had any particular glow.

Then again, considering the price of a new M3 with a Summicron dual at the start of the 50's, I would believe you have to make up something to defend it to your friends and the wifey. ^^

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Since it is posted not in RF sub-forum, I assume it was review on Leica SLR lenses, which OP refers to. I never hear, read "sunshine" in Leica RF lenses reviews.
Some Leica RF lenses as it was mention above known for Leica glow. To me it is nothing glorious, but weak performance on wide open, wide aperture. If it is present on anther apertures it indicates what lens needs cleaning.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

People see what they want or think that they should see. That is why it is so hard to stamp out various photographic myths. People will swear that they see what is not there.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Pure unadulterated marketing/self-justification bullshit. 'Nuff said.

 

[Cholentpot]

One of mine has built-in radiation, it may be from a piece of sun, that has been trough various fusion-stages and is now in the Thorium -> lead decay-stage.

This Leica-glow thing has been around for decades, thus it must refer to the older lenses, the newer ones are so perfect and expensive that they have absolutely nothing but detail, bokeh and sharpness.
I have only older lenses and apart from said radiation, none of mine (Summicron dual M and Summicron collapsible LTM ) have had any particular glow.

Then again, considering the price of a new M3 with a Summicron dual at the start of the 50's, I would believe you have to make up something to defend it to your friends and the wifey. ^^

One of my Kodaks has THOOORRIIUM!!! in the lens. I carry around the mighty power of THOR! when I shoot with that camera. It also sets off detectors at the border.

 

[MattKing]

I've heard that Leica lenses are where you put things when you want to put things "where the sun don't shine".
At least I think they were referring to Leica lenses.

 

[Eric Rose]

Mine has special Leica fairies in them that improve my composition, exposure and always put a halo around my lovely wife's head. The Leica glow is caused by these very same fairies as they refuse to turn their little lanterns off. I'm convinced they are the cause of global warming. They think everything should glow.

 

[Alan Gales]

The only liquid sunshine in lenses that I know of is Spherical Aberration.

 

[miha]

A german lens needs the right german musik to go by:

Brilliant

 

[TheRook]

People see what they want or think that they should see. That is why it is so hard to stamp out various photographic myths. People will swear that they see what is not there.

Right. And if one has sacrificed a lot of money to acquire it, then there is temptation to see all sorts of (non-existent) magical qualities which help justify the expenditure psychologically.

 

[chip j]

I was referring to RF lenses.

 

[Alan Johnson]

What year?
Early lenses had low contrast , sunshine could be adspeak for high contrast?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

When I'm using Leica, I've got sunshine on a cloudy day. When it's cold outside, I've got the month of May.

 

[Ai Print]

Chip, why do you do this? Can you buy a Leica at Walmart? Are they now too expensive for Ken Rockwell? And now this...

What gives man, really??

I use the equipment because there is a demonstrable difference in the image quality of the glass, period. I'm not imagining it, the difference is there. I am not talking about Mandler era glass that had a unique signature of aberration but modern stuff that needs nothing done to it in post, in the darkroom or the Lightroom.

I just have to really question the actual value of this kind of Leica trolling.

 

[pentaxuser]

I now suspect there is going to be "trouble right here in River City"

pentaxuser

 

[Kodachromeguy]

A german lens needs the right german musik to go by:

Um, that guy at the organ is wearing white socks. And the lady with a red sweater has about the tiniest shorts in which she could fit. But I bet it was a Leica photo.

 

[chip j]

Chip, why do you do this? Can you buy a Leica at Walmart? Are they now too expensive for Ken Rockwell? And now this...

What gives man, really??

I use the equipment because there is a demonstrable difference in the image quality of the glass, period. I'm not imagining it, the difference is there. I am not talking about Mandler era glass that had a unique signature of aberration but modern stuff that needs nothing done to it in post, in the darkroom or the Lightroom.

I just have to really question the actual value of this kind of Leica trolling.

I LOVE my Leica 5x Loupe--it's got PLENTY of Sunshine!!! But I rather dislike my Focotar 2--it's only got "half" a glow compared to my many other enlarging lenses. I paid big bucks for them both NEW. I can't afford Leica RF lenses, so I'm wondering about THEM. I DO have 5 Zeiss lenses for my G1/G2 though, and they have a sparkle & liquidity that is amazingly beautiful.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I LOVE my Leica 5x Loupe--it's got PLENTY of Sunshine!!! But I rather dislike my Focotar 2--it's only got "half" a glow compared to my many other enlarging lenses. I paid big bucks for them both NEW. I can't afford Leica RF lenses, so I'm wondering about THEM. I DO have 5 Zeiss lenses for my G1/G2 though, and they have a sparkle & liquidity that is amazingly beautiful.

You mean the EMO Wetzlar Macromax loupe Leica bought the rights to?

Stop obsessing over the mystical properties you are spinning around Leica & get on & use the Contax - realistically there is vanishingly little between those Zeiss lenses & contemporaneous Leica glass. Both are about as good as 35mm lenses get.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Chip, why do you do this? Can you buy a Leica at Walmart? Are they now too expensive for Ken Rockwell? And now this...

What gives man, really??

I use the equipment because there is a demonstrable difference in the image quality of the glass, period. I'm not imagining it, the difference is there. I am not talking about Mandler era glass that had a unique signature of aberration but modern stuff that needs nothing done to it in post, in the darkroom or the Lightroom.

I just have to really question the actual value of this kind of Leica trolling.

I think you have completely missed the point of this thread. Normally I would say it went over your head, but I get the feeling that you are so high up on your horse it probably passed beneath you...