Leica Basics: In Need of Some Leica Education

[Don_ih]

Also, being old is not a reason to avoid them, The reason to avoid old lenses is the same reason to avoid any lens: damage. Old lenses are more likely to be scratched and hazy. There are plenty of old Elmar 50s and 35s out there with no damage at all, though, and they're very very good,

 

[bags27]

Also, being old is not a reason to avoid them, The reason to avoid old lenses is the same reason to avoid any lens: damage. Old lenses are more likely to be scratched and hazy. There are plenty of old Elmar 50s and 35s out there with no damage at all, though, and they're very very good,

+1 to infinity and beyond. In the end, it's about your aesthetic preferences and vision. Many photographers value the older lenses for how they render. Many places to learn about them. Here's a very good one.

Leica M Lenses

The Leica M Lenses Forum is dedicated to everything around the Leica M lenses like Summilux, Summicron and Noctilux

www.l-camera-forum.com

 

[chuckroast]

+1 to infinity and beyond. In the end, it's about your aesthetic preferences and vision. Many photographers value the older lenses for how they render. Many places to learn about them. Here's a very good one.

Leica M Lenses

The Leica M Lenses Forum is dedicated to everything around the Leica M lenses like Summilux, Summicron and Noctilux

www.l-camera-forum.com

I have shot (monochrome only) with an uncoated 1945 collapsible Elmar, a mid-1950s collapsible Summicron, modern Summicrons, and more-or-less modern Color-Skopars.

They are all rather different.

The uncoated Elmar does lovely and ethereal things with light sources and specular highlights.

The 1950s era 'Crons have a kind of low contrast look, albeit being very sharp, that I don't much care for. It's not that it's bad, it just that - to my eye - the images look flat and lack the "pop" that makes an image sing.

That's why I switched to Color-Skopars for my Barnack body. These are an excellent value and razor sharp. The 21mm f/4 LTM Color-Skopar approaches clinical levels of sharpness and rendering reminiscent of some the best Zeiss optics of yore.

My M lenses are all from 1970-2000. They are sharp corner to corner, contrasty and manage to do this without giving that clinical look. (I would imagine that the modern APOs are probably muchso, though.)

Though I've shot almost no color with any of these, my general experience has been that Japanes optics tend to render warmer while the German glass gives you cooler color rendition.

 

[bags27]

I have shot (monochrome only) with an uncoated 1945 collapsible Elmar, a mid-1950s collapsible Summicron, modern Summicrons, and more-or-less modern Color-Skopars.

They are all rather different.

The uncoated Elmar does lovely and ethereal things with light sources and specular highlights.

The 1950s era 'Crons have a kind of low contrast look, albeit being very sharp, that I don't much care for. It's not that it's bad, it just that - to my eye - the images look flat and lack the "pop" that makes an image sing.

That's why I switched to Color-Skopars for my Barnack body. These are an excellent value and razor sharp. The 21mm f/4 LTM Color-Skopar approaches clinical levels of sharpness and rendering reminiscent of some the best Zeiss optics of yore.

My M lenses are all from 1970-2000. They are sharp corner to corner, contrasty and manage to do this without giving that clinical look. (I would imagine that the modern APOs are probably muchso, though.)

Though I've shot almost no color with any of these, my general experience has been that Japanes optics tend to render warmer while the German glass gives you cooler color rendition.

Of course 50's - 60's Leica glass was often designed by the immortal Walter Mandler, and his lenses usually sell for a significant premium. I have a Mandler-designed 135mm that I will never part with. Can't see my way to buy his 35 Crons, esp. v 2.

German glass, at least modern stuff, generally has more "pop."

I agree with your distinction between Japanese and German rendering. But interestingly, I think my Japanese-designed Mamiya glass is more clinical and cooler than my Zeiss-designed Blad and Rollei glass.

 

[chuckroast]

Of course 50's - 60's Leica glass was often designed by the immortal Walter Mandler, and his lenses usually sell for a significant premium. I have a Mandler-designed 135mm that I will never part with. Can't see my way to buy his 35 Crons, esp. v 2.

German glass, at least modern stuff, generally has more "pop."

I agree with your distinction between Japanese and German rendering. But interestingly, I think my Japanese-designed Mamiya glass is more clinical and cooler than my Zeiss-designed Blad and Rollei glass.

Which Mamiya glass?

I've not found that to be true with the TLR lenses (even the later black barreled variants), nor the M645, nor the Mamiya Press lenses. In fairness, all the samples of those I I used were still fairly old in the scheme of things.

 

[bags27]

Which Mamiya glass?

I've not found that to be true with the TLR lenses (even the later black barreled variants), nor the M645, nor the Mamiya Press lenses. In fairness, all the samples of those I I used were still fairly old in the scheme of things.

The N glass for my Mamiya 7. Phenomenally sharp....at least that's my personal experience.

 

[chuckroast]

The N glass for my Mamiya 7. Phenomenally sharp....at least that's my personal experience.

I had forgotten about that. I once rented that camera with the 43mm lens. It was astonishingly sharp.

 

[bags27]

I had forgotten about that. I once rented that camera with the 43mm lens. It was astonishingly sharp.

Indeed. I took a photo of El Capitan from nearly a 1/4 mile away with the 43 that now hangs as a huge print on my wall, and on the pine trees at the top the individual branches are clearly visible and distinct.

 

[250swb]

It was David Douglas Duncan that started using Nikkor lenses on his Leica's because they were sharper and 'punchier' for reportage work and that's how I see the Voigtlander LTM Skopar lenses (or adapted on M's). As a consistent and sharp set of lenses they all perform but without the fuss of looking for 'lens quality' (which can be good or bad) by searching for individual lenses. Sure the excitement of Leica lenses is in the searching for the Holy Grail that suits you to perfection, but it's also a way to start second guessing yourself and doubting your choice. So if I want to record something without too much worry about 'art' and know it's going to be great I reach for a Skopar.

 

[bags27]

It was David Douglas Duncan that started using Nikkor lenses on his Leica's because they were sharper and 'punchier' for reportage work and that's how I see the Voigtlander LTM Skopar lenses (or adapted on M's). As a consistent and sharp set of lenses they all perform but without the fuss of looking for 'lens quality' (which can be good or bad) by searching for individual lenses. Sure the excitement of Leica lenses is in the searching for the Holy Grail that suits you to perfection, but it's also a way to start second guessing yourself and doubting your choice. So if I want to record something without too much worry about 'art' and know it's going to be great I reach for a Skopar.

Wise words. And your flickr photos are pretty spectacular!