Does Leica make lenses for film anymore?
-
A
- Thread starter chip j
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Mamiya 7 - 210mm lens + finder
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-SW 75mm 1:4.5 Lens in Copal 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
For Sale Schneider Kreuznach Makro Symmar HM 5.6/120 in Copal No. 0 Shutter
- Started by michaeljoeserra
-
Want to Buy Graflex RB 4x5 (Auto or Tele) with longer bellows extension
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
Relax, every Leica lens made for the M mount works great on film and will show improvements in image quality if they are a newer optically improved version.
For example, last year I was using a Leica 35mm 1.4 Asph on both my M6TTL and M240. It worked great but suffered from a bit of focus shift from 2.0-4.0 that is fairly common in fast wides that don't employ a floating element. It was barely noticeable with the M6TTL but much more so on the M240 as that medium is far more precise and flat.
So I rented the newer version, the 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE and compared the two on both cameras. The newer version was clearly better in that it did not suffer any focus shift but was also sharper in the corners wide open on *both* mediums, film and digital, so I bought one and love it on either camera. I used the 35mm 1.4 FLE on my M6TTL last Monday for an assignment that I am shooting all on B&W film and the images it produced are just stunning.
Bottom line, with a few exceptions like some of the newer large format lenses and Nikon's new "E" aperture lenses, newer lenses that are the go to for digital are equally as worthy for film. There are no lenses made for film, there are just newer versions of lenses that tackle both mediums with better optical output.
For example, last year I was using a Leica 35mm 1.4 Asph on both my M6TTL and M240. It worked great but suffered from a bit of focus shift from 2.0-4.0 that is fairly common in fast wides that don't employ a floating element. It was barely noticeable with the M6TTL but much more so on the M240 as that medium is far more precise and flat.
So I rented the newer version, the 35mm 1.4 Asph FLE and compared the two on both cameras. The newer version was clearly better in that it did not suffer any focus shift but was also sharper in the corners wide open on *both* mediums, film and digital, so I bought one and love it on either camera. I used the 35mm 1.4 FLE on my M6TTL last Monday for an assignment that I am shooting all on B&W film and the images it produced are just stunning.
Bottom line, with a few exceptions like some of the newer large format lenses and Nikon's new "E" aperture lenses, newer lenses that are the go to for digital are equally as worthy for film. There are no lenses made for film, there are just newer versions of lenses that tackle both mediums with better optical output.
Last edited:
I don't know what "Optimized for Digital" means, but Leica M mount lenses made today work just as well on a 50 yr old M3 as they do on whatever the latest digital M is called. The only lenses I can think of that are really 'digital only' are the lenses Canon and Nikon sell that have smaller image circles for those crop-sensor digital SLRs. Those lenses won't work on Canon or Nikon film cameras, but the 'fullframe' lenses they've made in the digital era work just fine on their film cameras. I've been using the Canon EF 24-105mm f4L-IS lens that came with my digital 5DmkII on my EOS-1V film camera quite a lot, with magnificent results!
Both shot on Ilford Delta 400, developed in Tmax Developer, EI-400. Shot with the Canon EOS-1V and 24-105mm f4L-IS lens. The young man is my 19 year old son.
Both shot on Ilford Delta 400, developed in Tmax Developer, EI-400. Shot with the Canon EOS-1V and 24-105mm f4L-IS lens. The young man is my 19 year old son.
Good point, I forgot about those!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 803
- Format
- Sub 35mm
Not sure, but wouldn't RF lenses designed for digital be larger and heavier than their counterparts designed in the days of film? Sure seems like a lot of new lenses these days are getting bigger in the same FL and aperture compared to older lenses.
I'm agree to above. "Relax" is the right word. Pay big money for new Leica lens, relax and enjoy. I went through film era Leitz made glass, almost all 50mm and one 35, I also went through some 35mm Cosina Voigtlander lenses.
Yet, modern, still available NiB Summarit 35 2.5 is fantastic on film and on PRINTS. It is not big, nor heavy lens.
I also used Canon USM 50L in EOS mount with color film and have one of my favorite family portraits with this lens.
Yet, modern, still available NiB Summarit 35 2.5 is fantastic on film and on PRINTS. It is not big, nor heavy lens.
I also used Canon USM 50L in EOS mount with color film and have one of my favorite family portraits with this lens.
No, they are either exactly the same or in the case of the three latest offerings from Leica, lighter and slightly smaller due to an improved shade design. And again, these lenses are not "Designed for digital", they are optically improved across the board and those differences can and will be seen on film as well as digital.
The reasons that lenses get bigger at least in the SLR world is the implementation of things like AF and in lens vibration reduction features.
.Light is light, and for the most part the lens doesn't really care all that much as to whether it is projecting onto film, digital sensor, or even just a white sheet of paper.
Optics is a very interesting field in and of itself, and I strongly encourage people to dive into learning more about it, but I'm a geek and very biased.
There are however a few cases where the medium used will have an impact on lens design, but they are generally rather edge case issues rather than hard and fast ones that apply to all lenses for all cameras.
The first and most obvious one is when you're building a camera that will be filtered and only sensitive to a rather narrow band in the light spectrum, such as building an IR camera and lens. If the blue light will never actually have an impact on an image, then we really don't need to care where it goes or how it focuses, and don't have to take nearly as much care with regards to correcting for chromatic aberrations. This allows a slightly simpler design of lens to do just as well in its given narrow-band task, but it will preform very poorly if you then try to employ it to use with wide spectrum film.
Another issue that crops up at times is the angle the light strikes the focal plane at, which can complicate very wide angle designs (Or possibly a lens with exceedingly short flange length?). If it comes from too shallow of an angle then a very narrow beam of light from a given part of the lens becomes more of an oval shape rather than a round circle, which can impact clarity. This issue is amplified in the majority of digital sensor designs due to the micro lens setup on the sensor, and as such lenses need to correct the light path angle or it will lose a lot of light and clarity. Hopefully someone can chip in with more details on modern wide angle lens design, as I seem to be drawing a blank on terminology for the newer designs.
As far as film goes, I really can't think of any negative impact this style of design would actually have, other than increasing the size and weight of the lens assembly, but I would be very interested to hear if someone was aware of other disadvantages of a specific design.
Optics is a very interesting field in and of itself, and I strongly encourage people to dive into learning more about it, but I'm a geek and very biased.
There are however a few cases where the medium used will have an impact on lens design, but they are generally rather edge case issues rather than hard and fast ones that apply to all lenses for all cameras.
The first and most obvious one is when you're building a camera that will be filtered and only sensitive to a rather narrow band in the light spectrum, such as building an IR camera and lens. If the blue light will never actually have an impact on an image, then we really don't need to care where it goes or how it focuses, and don't have to take nearly as much care with regards to correcting for chromatic aberrations. This allows a slightly simpler design of lens to do just as well in its given narrow-band task, but it will preform very poorly if you then try to employ it to use with wide spectrum film.
Another issue that crops up at times is the angle the light strikes the focal plane at, which can complicate very wide angle designs (Or possibly a lens with exceedingly short flange length?). If it comes from too shallow of an angle then a very narrow beam of light from a given part of the lens becomes more of an oval shape rather than a round circle, which can impact clarity. This issue is amplified in the majority of digital sensor designs due to the micro lens setup on the sensor, and as such lenses need to correct the light path angle or it will lose a lot of light and clarity. Hopefully someone can chip in with more details on modern wide angle lens design, as I seem to be drawing a blank on terminology for the newer designs.
As far as film goes, I really can't think of any negative impact this style of design would actually have, other than increasing the size and weight of the lens assembly, but I would be very interested to hear if someone was aware of other disadvantages of a specific design.
For me any lens made after 1950 is a "modern" lens. I have a 50 f2 DR Summicron made in 1957 that I would put up against any other 50mm lens. In fact, I also have the Zeiss 50 f2 Planar lens and there's not a dime's worth of difference in sharpness. The Zeiss is just a tad bit more contrasty.
The 90mm f2.8 Elmarit I have was made in 1969 and a superb lens that I wouldn't trade for another newer model. This one was shot with this lens not long back with HP-5 and HC-110.
Dntwn+012a by David Fincher, on Flickr
The 90mm f2.8 Elmarit I have was made in 1969 and a superb lens that I wouldn't trade for another newer model. This one was shot with this lens not long back with HP-5 and HC-110.
Dntwn+012a by David Fincher, on FlickrOther than new releases (with improvements) of a few of lenses in the Leica stable and the totally new Summarit lenses, the only difference I'm aware of between new/old, film/digital Leica glass is the inclusion of 6-bit coding which is beneficial, though not absolutely needed, for use on their digital bodies.
Designed or optimized for Digital often means a tele-centric design but they work equally well on digital and film. I prefer the older Leica offerings to the newest optically clearly superior lenses. As someone once said the Beauty is often in the flaws.
I understand that for digital backs on LF cameras that new lenses with smaller angle of view (AOV) also called image circle, have been designed since digital backs have smaller area than 4x5 for example. But for full frame 35mm cameras I can't see that there is anything special required for digital camera lens design. However, it seems that the manufacturers are playing the paranoia game and claiming they are designed specially for digital which "encourages" us punters to think our old lenses are no good if we have digital cameras. All done in the name of keeping their revenue streams working for them.
Also, since Zeiss came out with their M Mount lenses and a lot of died in the wool leica users considered them on a par or superior in some cases to the leica offerings, leica have had to up their game. especially since the Zeiss offerings are so much cheaper.
It amazes me that since all the earlier marketing hype about how good their lenses were, that Leica have miraculously managed to suddenly improve them so much when some serious competition arrived on the market. Perhaps they were just never as good as everyone believed.
That is not to say that leica lenses were/are bad. When you get to this level of kit then its really subjective about how the lenses draw or the colour rendition they give. I just think that since there was no real competition ecepting voigtlander prior to zeiss m mount lens, and that RF lens designs, especially shorter focal lengths, are naturally better than slr designs, that Leica really didn't have to try too hard to be the best.
Also, since Zeiss came out with their M Mount lenses and a lot of died in the wool leica users considered them on a par or superior in some cases to the leica offerings, leica have had to up their game. especially since the Zeiss offerings are so much cheaper.
It amazes me that since all the earlier marketing hype about how good their lenses were, that Leica have miraculously managed to suddenly improve them so much when some serious competition arrived on the market. Perhaps they were just never as good as everyone believed.
That is not to say that leica lenses were/are bad. When you get to this level of kit then its really subjective about how the lenses draw or the colour rendition they give. I just think that since there was no real competition ecepting voigtlander prior to zeiss m mount lens, and that RF lens designs, especially shorter focal lengths, are naturally better than slr designs, that Leica really didn't have to try too hard to be the best.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2014
- Messages
- 4
It is my understanding that the difference between digital-designed lenses versus earlier legacy lenses is the way the light is focused to the film/sensor plane. With film-designed lenses the light scatters as it goes through the lens and within the film chamber. With a digital-designed lens the light enters the film chamber perpendicular to the sensor plane so there will be a direct hit to the pixels and produce less fringing/color shift etc. That's the gist of it. I may be off on some of the technical nuances.
What you read on the internet and what something is like in actual use is often night and day. I have no issues with bad bokeh or a modern Leica lens being too "clinical". Yes, my version 4 35mm Summicron from 1994 renders differently than my 2015 35mm 1.4 FLE. It's up to my inputs that make the photos from either lens sink or swim.
Oh...trust me, there is a huge list of things that needed to be addressed to make it all work together well, especially with wide angle lenses and even more so with shorter flange distances, but that is not a discussion for this forum. It's not hype, the struggle was real.
Last edited:
The early Leica M wides were symmetrical derivatives.
The M5 and M6 meter cell required more reverse telephoto designs to clear the meter physically and the meter cells line of sight - respectively.
Such later lenses require less compensation on the six bit coding for the digital sensors micro lenses.
Later lenses use higher refractive glasses with larger dispersion ranges and aspheric surfaces to make manufacture simpler.
The digital sensor constrains these modern lens design.
Film does not need this constraint.
The M5 and M6 meter cell required more reverse telephoto designs to clear the meter physically and the meter cells line of sight - respectively.
Such later lenses require less compensation on the six bit coding for the digital sensors micro lenses.
Later lenses use higher refractive glasses with larger dispersion ranges and aspheric surfaces to make manufacture simpler.
The digital sensor constrains these modern lens design.
Film does not need this constraint.
My understanding is that "optimized for digital" has to do with the reflectivity of the CCD itself. Unlike film, a CCD is a reflective surface. The light that bounces off of it and back to the (reflective) lens scatters back and reduces contrast across the image.
A lens "optimized for digital" reduces the reflectivity of the glass at the back of the lens.
That's my understanding, but I can't say for sure it is true. I can say that I had a similarly described issue when I made my first pinhole lens for my 4x5. I used an aluminum can, made a sweet, tiny hole, but failed to deal with the reflectivity of the aluminum. That resulted in low contrast images. I blackened the aluminum and got great images.
I think "optimized for digital" does the same thing.
A lens "optimized for digital" reduces the reflectivity of the glass at the back of the lens.
That's my understanding, but I can't say for sure it is true. I can say that I had a similarly described issue when I made my first pinhole lens for my 4x5. I used an aluminum can, made a sweet, tiny hole, but failed to deal with the reflectivity of the aluminum. That resulted in low contrast images. I blackened the aluminum and got great images.
I think "optimized for digital" does the same thing.
In principle any light reflected from the sensors is photons going to waste, so it is to be hoped that future sensors will appear totally black..... In my experience optics with nearly flat rear surfaces have problems with reflections (Minoltas CLE Leica M mount 90mm is an example).
p.
p.
In the early days of digital reflexes there was a serious problem with colour fringing when two high contrast areas of a scene were next to each other, such as tree branches silhoutted against the sky. This was even present with some 'Bridge' type cameras, and even one that was supposed to have a dedicated zoom lens designed by Schneider especially for digital sensors.. This now has improved to the point where that problem is no longer existant to any important degree
I have Nikon film (F100 and F6) and Digital bodies (D700 and D90) and one of the Digi bodies has the cropped sensor. I also have Nikon lenses and have never found colour fringing to be a problem with any of them on either full frame or cropped sensor.. I have one Sigma lens, a 17/70 designed for a cropped sensor, my only one, so designed. I use it on my D90 and there is not a trace of lower quality other than what I was experiencing using my full frame lenses. All my other lenses are full frame Nikon designated AF-D.
The one advantage using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor digital, is that, only the central portion of the image of the lens is used to form the image.
I feel that there are a good number of people involved with photography who are more concerned with owning equipment of reputed quality than actually getting out there and actually taking photographs. They talk as well informed as 'experts' but can usually found to be only repeating unsubstanciated stories heard from countless others with a good deal of Chinese Whispers involved on the way.
As for Leitz Lenses, I also have used a few in the 53 or so years that I have been involved with photography and I have only found one that performed less than I expected and that was an early 50 F2 Summicron fitted to a two stroke wind-on M3. This lens was somewhat less than perfect (Balsam seperation, coating blotched and evidence of being dropped at some time).
I have Nikon film (F100 and F6) and Digital bodies (D700 and D90) and one of the Digi bodies has the cropped sensor. I also have Nikon lenses and have never found colour fringing to be a problem with any of them on either full frame or cropped sensor.. I have one Sigma lens, a 17/70 designed for a cropped sensor, my only one, so designed. I use it on my D90 and there is not a trace of lower quality other than what I was experiencing using my full frame lenses. All my other lenses are full frame Nikon designated AF-D.
The one advantage using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor digital, is that, only the central portion of the image of the lens is used to form the image.
I feel that there are a good number of people involved with photography who are more concerned with owning equipment of reputed quality than actually getting out there and actually taking photographs. They talk as well informed as 'experts' but can usually found to be only repeating unsubstanciated stories heard from countless others with a good deal of Chinese Whispers involved on the way.
As for Leitz Lenses, I also have used a few in the 53 or so years that I have been involved with photography and I have only found one that performed less than I expected and that was an early 50 F2 Summicron fitted to a two stroke wind-on M3. This lens was somewhat less than perfect (Balsam seperation, coating blotched and evidence of being dropped at some time).
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |