Leica R - what am I missing?

Film-Niko said:

Sorry, that was not my intent at all ! It was just my information given by your statements so far. Good to hear you are still active as a lens designer. May I ask in what field of optic design you are currently working?

Click to expand...

No probs at all. In the last few years my work has mainly been objectives or eyepieces for night-vision kit, & Head-Up Displays for avionics.
I still tinker with photo objectives to feed into training material though.

Film-Niko said:

I am talking about improving film photography by using better lenses.

That is what the modern designed lenses offer:
- better sharpness
- higher resolution
- higher contrast
- less flare by improved coatings and improved inner reflection avoiding measurements
- nicer, smoother bokeh
- less astigmatism
- often improved coma performance
- very often much improved mechanics
- often additional wheather / water and dust resistance by additional sealings
- often (e.g. with the Zeiss lenses) very nice separation of the in-focus to the out-of-focus details ("3D-Pop")
- often (e.g. Zeiss) excellent colour reproduction.

Almost all of the new top-quality lenses offer excellent performance even at full open aperture of f1.4 or f1.8 / 2.0.
None of the older lenses can do that.
Lots of the new lenses have at f1.4 a performance equivalent to older lenses stopped down to f2.8.
And lots of the new lenses have their 'sweet spot = optimal performance' at f2.8 to f4, whereas most older lenses have their sweet spot at f5.6 to f8.
So in most cases you gain two stops with the modern lenses, which means that you much more often can use an ISO 100 film instead of an ISO 400 film. Which makes a big difference in quality.

Click to expand...

From my numerous direct comparison tests and experiences in my daily photography with the older lens designs and the current, modern much improved lens designs I can agree completely!

And I want to add another important improvement:
Most of the modern lenses use "floating elements" technology: That provides a constant performance on a very high level from close distances up to infinity.
Very few older lenses offer that.
With the exception of macro lenses normal photography lenses are generally calculated for infinity. That means that the performance at close(r) distances is generally worse compared to infinity. Exactly that is what I see with most of my older lens designs.
But with my modern lenses with floating elements I get perfect performance from the minimal focus distance up to infinity.
A visible and very useful advantage.

The significantly improved modern lens designs have been a real revelation and a kind of catalyst for my photography:
- finally very good optical performance already at open aperture; no need anymore to stop down for reasonable quality
- finally excellent performance already at only 1 stop stopped down; no need any more to stop down to f4 - f5,6 to get excellent quality
- because of this much better performance much, much more situations in which higher quality, lower speed film can be used
- more creative possibilities because of f1.4 lenses with full open-aperture capabilities
- finally a wonderful bokeh
- finally more robust, weather and dust-sealed lenses, something that has been standard (for very good reasons!) with my prof. Nikon bodies for decades (and to protect only the bodies, but not the lenses is inconsequent).

Best regards,
Henning

MattKing said:

To my mind, it isn't a matter of whether newer and "better" lenses give you better photographs - they very, very, very rarely do.

Click to expand...

Matt, from my long year experience and lens tests with the modern, significantly improved lens designs I have to disagree. I've realized so many advantages - both technical and creative - that my older lenses are meanwhile kind of "retired".
The new lenses are offering me lots of new opportunities, and I am very thankful to use them.

I've seen a similar development in my photography: With each new and much improved camera body over the years my photography improved as well: Not only in technical terms, but also very much in creative terms. My latest 35mm SLR - the F6 - gives me so much more creative possibilities than my first 35mm SLR - the FM - that the F6 is by far my most used camera. And the FM is rarely used anymore.

MattKing said:

Save and except for very specific uses, such as extreme enlargements, or photographs that demand technical qualities, such as aerial photography for scientific use.

Click to expand...

Definitely these new lenses are not only good for specific uses, but for many "normal" applications and situations. The better optical quality can be seen in most 'normal' photographs. Alone the possibility to often replace an ISO 400/27° with an ISO 100/21° film, or to replace TMZ oder Delta 3200 by TMY-2 or XP2 Super because of the much better open aperture qualities compared to old lens designs is a big step forward.

Best regards,
Henning

Mark J said:

I'm with Henning as regards the quality of the late-80's/& 90's lenses though, there was a big step up in ambition and performance when Lothar Koelsch came in, almost all of those designs are competitive with the best nowadays. I had the brief pleasure of taking some shots with the 280mm f/4 at a Leica day at our local shop, I was lucky enough to have one of my last rolls of Kodachrome 25 in the camera. The quality was as good as it gets, right across the frame, at f/4. Shame it's not such a useful focal length ... except for sports ...

Click to expand...

Mark, I well remember when Leica introduced the - meanwhile famous - APO-Telyt-R 4/280. They have been so proud to have developed a kind of "perfect lens" with absolutely stellar performance. Later tests demonstrated that they were indeed successful, as this lens offers an extraordinary performance.

Concerning the 280/ 300mm focal length: I am using my 300mm lens mainly for wildlife (sometimes with a 1.4x teleconverter) and .......portrait and fashion.
Yupp, 300mm has a quite long tradition in that field. As it gives you a certain, quite nice look of subject isolation. See below an example, made with the F6 and Nikkor AF-S 4/300 D ED on Provia 100F:

Mark J said:

In all of this, I have no axe to grind about what people should use, and whether they can get great photos with other kit. In fact it's quite hard to find a sub-group for whom Leica R is the answer, nowadays. I often recommend the late Zeiss ZE/ZF/ZK lenses if people want a quality manual-focus optic.

Click to expand...

Yupp, from my own experiences with these late / current Zeiss lenses (especially in the current Milvus lens line) I can really highly recommend them. Real alternatives (and in some cases even better) to the latest Leica R lenses.

Best regards,
Henning

Film-Niko said:

Almost all of the new top-quality lenses offer excellent performance even at full open aperture of f1.4 or f1.8 / 2.0.
None of the older lenses can do that.

Click to expand...

Again, pontification, and no evidence. I have no need to trade in my Rokkor 28mm f2.0 or Rokkor 35mm f1.8 or Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f2.0. They all work great wide open.

I think you're as good at pontification as the next man, xkaes !
Telling us that the Rokkor 35/1.8 is as good as the modern fast 35's is a pretty big stretch. ( ps. before you ask, I have previously owned both the MC and MD 35/1.8s ) .
However I will concede that I don't know what your definition of 'great' is.

xkaes said:

Again, pontification, and no evidence.

Click to expand...

1. You have started arguing here by your statement that there has not been any progress in lens design and production in the last decades. You have claimed that the old lenses from the 60ies and 70ies are as good as the new ones.
So you are implying that all the new glass types, aspherical lenses, improved coatings, huge progress in lens calculation by the improvements of computers and CAD, better production methods......and so on, is not real. That it is a big scam by the lens manufacturers.
Consequently you are also implying that all the millions of photographers, who have bought and used these new lenses in the last 20-30 years, are all stupid. And that they cannot see that their new lenses are better than the old ones.

Where is your evidence for that bold claim???

And as you have said by yourself: You have never used one of these modern lenses by yourself. So without any experience at all by yourself you are claiming to know how these new lenses perform.

2) In this thread many links have been given by several members to several different very good lens test resources with tests of the new and old lenses. So of course enough evidence was given here!
That you simply ignore that by ignoring all these test results, is just your problem.

3) I have tested the lenses here for me. And the results have been very clear, and as described by me. Therefore I have enough evidence for me. Therefore I spend money on these new lenses. Because they are really worth it.
I prefer slide projection and optical prints in my darkroom. If you want to see my results, you are invited to come here and look at them.

xkaes said:

I have no need to trade in my Rokkor 28mm f2.0 or Rokkor 35mm f1.8 or Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f2.0. They all work great wide open.

Click to expand...

No one is saying that you are not satiesfied with your results. You like them, and all is fine. No problem at all.
The topic here is that if you compare these lenses with modern equivalents, you will see significant differences and improvements, with several parameters.

Alan Edward Klein said:

What's a high index lanthanum flint and what does it do?

Click to expand...

Good question, let me see if i can make a simple explanation.
If we're going to make a lens in the standard-ish focal lengths, eg. anything from a Tessar to a higher-speed planar/double-gauss lens, then for basic colour correction we will need positive (crown) lenses from the left side of the chart ....
...and negative (flint) elements from the right-hand side of the chart.
This is just the principle of what we call an 'achromatic doublet' , which you can look up eg. on Wiki for more explanation.

Older and low-speed lenses that were designed in the early-20th century would have used a positive lens fro eg. the 'SK' region, just a little higher in refracting power than the basic crowns and window glass. The negative/flint would have been something in the 'LF' or 'F' section.

Now as the speed goes up, we need more refracting power and /or reduced lens curvatures, to help stop aberrations getting out of hand. The standard trick is to go higher up the chart for BOTH elements, as much as possible. So for the positive we might now choose something from the upper end of the 'LAK' section, or the left side of the 'LAF' or 'LASF' sections. The negative elements would be chosen from somewhere in the middle of the 'SF' area.
The more extreme spec lenses, like 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 need to go as high as possible, they often use positive elements like LAF21 , or LASF44.
These are actually just inside the 'flint' designation ( less than 50 'V' ) but they are countered by very dispersive flints in the upper 'SF' region.

Leica had a couple of glasses that were outside of the current Schott region, I think maybe one a little above LASF44 , and another slightly to the left of LASF31A.
These were the types that were deployed in a couple of places in the Noctilux designs.

Mark J said:

No probs at all. In the last few years my work has mainly been objectives or eyepieces for night-vision kit, & Head-Up Displays for avionics.
I still tinker with photo objectives to feed into training material though.

Click to expand...

Thanks ! Very interesting.

You guys would make great lens sales persons.

I fully agree that the new lenses being manufactured are technically much better than older designs and if I ever need or want full contrast, acutance or sharpness when I'm shooting my lens is wide open I may consider a new lens. If I wanted I could even consider buying a Leica SLR. However what I still fail to see is how technically better equipment equates to "better photography." To me that is just a thinly disguised sales pitch. For me that is the crux of the problem.

I go into local art galleries from time to time and I see what types of photographs people are actually buying from those galleries. Here I have to agree with @xkaes. The great majority are still buying photographs that could easily have been shot by Ansel Adams using a Cooke XV Convertible lens or a Kodak Wide Field Ektar. Either that or the photographer received their training, and perhaps their camera, from the Lomography School of Art. And reviewing the news I see that people, or someone, are spending a lot of money on some very strange things. As one example, being a westerner, I really enjoy viewing Richard Prince's photo of a cowboy, which is actually a photograph of a photograph, and most certainly did not require the type of lenses you have been describing in this thread to create. Neither did Gursky's Rhein; all that was required there was just a digital editing program and a buyer with a lot more money than sense (IMHO).

To be a bit more personal I myself am shooting a camera that was sold at least 40 years ago and using a type of film that was available on the market even before that. The lens I am shooting with right now is more recent but was not designed by Leica or Minolta. It could probably be better than it is in a number of ways, but it really is a very good lens. But let's be honest, I am manually focusing it with 70 year old eyes so I'm pretty sure it could be even better in a younger man's hands.

However, I can agree that there is certainly a place for these new lenses, and I am very happy they are being designed and manufactured. I hope someone is buying and using them because I want these lens designers and manufacturers to stay in business. But I certainly do NOT agree that they are necessary to create awesome photographs or even to create saleable art, which is not necessarily the same thing. If you can afford that lens, and it fits your camera, and you want it, then by all means go out and get one. But the first thing you need to be aware of is that the lens will not make you a better photographer, and the second thing I can tell you is that there will be another slightly better lens available in what seems to be a very short time. Once you climb onto that treadmill it never stops.

Enjoy your weekend. Go out and create something.

It is critically important to differentiate between the question of whether the newer lenses are improved over the older ones, and what the consequence is of those improvements.
Clearly, there are photographers who make use of the improvements. It would be rare that I would.

I agree with you (Pioneer) that technical quality of lenses is no guarantee of good images.
I have no gripe with people liking older lenses and wanting to incorporate the optical faults of these lenses into their artistic vision. Photographic art is a broad church and it gives me more pleasure (rather then less) to see people enthusing about vintage optics.
However I see just as many poor images coming from people who like a vintage look from older lenses with flare and visible aberrations as I do from people using the latest optics. There is a general lack of imagination and understanding of the need for SUBJECT/LIGHT/COMPOSITION in both camps ; any trawl through several thousand images on Flickr one afternoon will confirm this.

As some of you may know, I am doing scientific photography tests for about 30 years, including lens, film and sensor tests. And from time to time companies from the photo industry are asking me for totally independent, critical test results and double checks.
Over the years I've read quite a lot of nonesense here on photrio. The narrative that there has not been visible progress in lens design during the last decades definitely belongs to that. It has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Period.

So, just for those members here who are really interested in facts and useful info, and who so far have not used modern lenses by themselves:
I have today just made a very small, fast and simple comparison test for you: Old lens design from the early seventies compared to modern lens design from 2000 and 2015.
As some here assume that modern lenses are only useful with the best and highest resolving films (which is not true), I have used the lowest resolving medium I have currently at hand: My "fat pixel lady" , my 12 MP Nikon D3s.
In my standard resolution test with object contrast of 1:4 (two stops) and my standard test lens Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF I get
at f5,6: 51-55 Lp/mm.
(Nyquist-limit of that sensor: 59 Lp/mm (without consideration of the AA-Filter which this camera has).
For comparison:
Classic grain ISO 400/27° films belong to the lowest resolving films we have on the market. For example in the same test under identical conditions I get 60-75 lp/mm with HP5+.
And with Provia 100F 120 - 135 lp/mm, so more than double compared to the D3s.

So if we see differences with the 12 MP D3s, we will definitely also see differences with the low resolving films.
The 12 MP D3s is definitely a medium which is levelling / evenening out differences, because of the relatively low resolution. If you see differences with it, these differences will be much, much bigger with a 24, 36, 45 MP camera and also much bigger on film.
I've done lots of direct comparisons with this camera, different lenses and film. And when I had relatively small differences between lenses with the D3s, these differences have been very significant and much more visible on films like Provia 100F or Delta 100.

Therefore very important:
The differences you will see in the following photos shot with the D3s will be much bigger and more pronounced on film (mainly because of the higher film resolution).

First comparison is between the old Nikkor AI 4.5/300mm - that lens was designed in the early seventies - and the Nikkor AF-S 4.0/300 D ED (introduced in 2000).
First four shots at a longer distance just out of one of my windows:
1) Nikkor AI 4,5/300 at open aperture f4.5
2) Nikkor AF-S 4.0/300 D ED at the same aperture f4.5
3) Nikkor AI 4,5/300 at open aperture f5.6
4) Nikkor AF-S 4.0/300 D ED at the same aperture f5.6

It is very clearly seen that the more modern AF-S Nikkor 4.0/300 D ED is significantly better at both apertures (higher contrast, better sharpness, better resolution).
The AF-S Nikkor 4/300 ED is even at f4.5 surpassing the older AI Nikkor stopped down to f5.6.
And I can ensure you that on colour reversal film (which I mainly use with these lenses) the difference is even much bigger.

More test shots coming in the following posts....stay tuned.

Mark J said:

I agree with you (Pioneer) that technical quality of lenses is no guarantee of good images.
I have no gripe with people liking older lenses and wanting to incorporate the optical faults of these lenses into their artistic vision. Photographic art is a broad church and it gives me more pleasure (rather then less) to see people enthusing about vintage optics.
However I see just as many poor images coming from people who like a vintage look from older lenses with flare and visible aberrations as I do from people using the latest optics. There is a general lack of imagination and understanding of the need for SUBJECT/LIGHT/COMPOSITION in both camps ; any trawl through several thousand images on Flickr one afternoon will confirm this.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Good or bad, the final print is up to the photographer and the equipment is only the tool used to get there.

In another 40 years people will be having this same argument. The only thing that will change is the technology. My cell phone camera is amazing to me.

But my bad photos are still bad.

And another two shots with these two lenses: Now at short distance indoor. I have used film boxes as a test subject, because
- you all know them
- they have fine details.

1) Nikkor AI 4,5/300 at open aperture f4.5
2) Nikkor AF-S 4.0/300 D ED at the same aperture f4.5

Film-Niko said:

The topic here is that if you compare these lenses with modern equivalents, you will see significant differences and improvements, with several parameters.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing, and I'm not making any claim. I'm just asking for some evidence to back up the above statement. If it's so obvious, it should be simple.

I stick with the null hypothesis. If you show people 8x10" pictures taken with my Rokkor 24mm and any Leica 24mm they will not be able to see a difference.

Prove me wrong.

1. 8 x10" is quite a small print. The differences will be more apparent once you go to 12 x 16" . However if you point the lens into the sun, the differences will be apparent at 8 x 10"
2. To do this exact challenge requires us to go out and ( re-) buy a Minolta MC 24mm .... !


3. Here is a good review of the Minolta MC 35mm f/1.8 which corresponds closely with my memory of taking slides with one in the 1980's.

And here another example: Portrait lenses.
You probably all know Steve McCurry's most famous picture "Afghan Girl". It was shot with the Nikkor 2.5/105 in its latest optical version from the early seventies.
This lens was my first portrait lens. Nikonians know that this is indeed a very good lens with an excellent reputation, with good performance at open aperture, and very good performance in the f4 to f8 range (as with all 35mm format lenses from f11 on diffraction is reducing the performance visibly).

So now here a quick comparison at open aperture between this Nikkor 2.5/105 AI-S, and the current Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85 ZF.2.
Very important:
Both lenses used at their max. open aperture: The Nikkor at f2.5, and the Zeiss at f1.4
The Zeiss at f1.4 is even better than the Nikkor at f2.5 and f2.8 (the performance difference of f2.5 to f2.8 with the Nikkor is minimal and negligible).
So you get a two-stop performance advantage with the Zeiss. On film this difference is significantly bigger and more pronounced.
The 12 MP sensor is the limiting factor here.

1) Nikkor AI-S 2.5/105 at f2.5
2) Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85 ZF.2 at f.1.4

Best regards,
Henning

Seems like this thread has become a walk & talk over nuisance differences showing up in technical tests, but without question would fade into oblivion in majority of actual photographs on display.

I have no doubts optical performance has improved and will probably continue to do so, if perhaps only in the miniaturization while retaining most qualities of their larger brethren. But this thread has gone from a Leica R question, to full blown arguments over how lines per mm "improve" photography. They do not in general sense, and not in aesthetic sense, but possibly some do see a glow of hope when similar photos taken with top optical performer shows something the older glass did not. I just hope that the big picture is not going amiss with such a focus.

In all this, how a photograph is evaluated ? Under a microscope or with a plain human eye ? When we go larger from same negative, do we view it (as we should) from correspondingly larger distance, or we're still under a loupe ?

I can appreciate technical aspects of optical developments, and continue to remain amazed at tons of photographs taken with "dumpster" level optical devices.

Most important thing always is: whatever rocks one's boat to stay interested in photography is all there is to it.

Hassasin said:

1. Seems like this thread has become a walk & talk over nuisance differences showing up in technical tests, but without question would fade into oblivion in majority of actual photographs on display.

2. I have no doubts optical performance has improved and will probably continue to do so, if perhaps only in the miniaturization while retaining most qualities of their larger brethren. But this thread has gone from a Leica R question, to full blown arguments over how lines per mm "improve" photography.

2a. In all this, how a photograph is evaluated ? Under a microscope or with a plain human eye ? When we go larger from same negative, do we view it (as we should) from correspondingly larger distance, or we're still under a loupe ?

3. Most important thing always is: whatever rocks one's boat to stay interested in photography is all there is to it.

Click to expand...

1. No. You've selectively decided to ignore what those of us who like higher image quality have said. I have not done the same with people who don't need this.
2. It's not just about lines per mm. Take a photo with an MC 24/2.8 into the sun and do the same with a Leica R 24/2.8 and you don't need MTF tests to see the differences.
2a. see (2.) , human eye.
3. Staying interested in photography is something I always do and a reason why I'm interested in discussions like this, in addition to talking about photos and art.

xkaes said:

I'm not arguing, and I'm not making any claim.

Click to expand...

Of course you are, including the deleted post.

xkaes said:

I stick with the null hypothesis. If you show people 8x10" pictures taken with my Rokkor 24mm and any Leica 24mm they will not be able to see a difference.

Click to expand...

Again: You are completely missing the point: The Leica 2.8/24 for the R system you are referring to is an old lens, also from the early 70ies. And in the Leica lens line it did not belong to their best lenses. That has been explained to you here more than one time.
And there has not been a new version from Leica for the R system.
So as we are talking here about the newer, latest Leica R lenses and generally about the improvements of the latest lenses, you should compare your 24mm Rokkor to a Sigma Art 1.4/24, a Nikkor 1.4/24 or 1.8/24, or a Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25. And you will see the differences, guaranteed. Tests of those lenses you'll find at the sources which have been given here in this thread in former posts.

Mark J said:

1. No. You've selectively decided to ignore what those of us who like higher image quality have said. I have not done the same with people who don't need this.
2. It's not just about lines per mm. Take a photo with an MC 24/2.8 into the sun and do the same with a Leica R 24/2.8 and you don't need MTF tests to see the differences.
2a. see (2.) , human eye.
3. Staying interested in photography is something I always do and a reason why I'm interested in discussions like this, in addition to talking about photos and art.

Click to expand...

Agreed to 100% .

Hassasin said:

Seems like this thread has become a walk & talk over nuisance differences showing up in technical tests, but without question would fade into oblivion in majority of actual photographs on display.

Click to expand...

Not that this is a popularity contest, but I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong or right. However, I do agree with you. As I mentioned quite a while ago, lens X may "out-perform" (whatever that means) lens Z under different conditions and at different settings -- and vice-versa.

Film-Niko said:

So as we are talking here about the newer, latest Leica R lenses and generally about the improvements of the latest lenses, you should compare your 24mm Rokkor to a Sigma Art 1.4/24, a Nikkor 1.4/24 or 1.8/24, or a Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25. And you will see the differences, guaranteed. Tests of those lenses you'll find at the sources which have been given here in this thread in former posts.

Click to expand...

Just as an addition:
The Nikkor 2.8/24 AF-D has essentially the same optical construction as the Nikkor 2.8/24 AI from the 70ies. You won't be able to distinguish the results from both lenses.
2.8/24 lenses from Canon, Minolta or Pentax of that same time have a very similar performance. There are differences, but they are not huge or groundbreaking. I well remember tests of these lenses published in photo magazines.

Here is a more current test of the Nikkor 2.8/24 AF-D:

And here the test under exactly the same test conditions of its successor Nikkor 1.8/24 AF-S:

The new lens surpasses the old one optically in all parameters.

One of my favourite photobooks - for a handful of exquisitely composed shots of faraway places - is Visions of a Nomad by the explorer Wilfred Thesiger. He started off with a Leica II (he had quite a privileged background) and progressed to a Leicaflex in 1959, which he carried in a goatskin bag. Seems to have served him well. I just offer this info FWIW.