Leica R - what am I missing?

[JParker]

If I may, NO.

One group that knows lens (design, minute peculiarities in rendering etc) does not make image work in absolute majority of cases, and the other group that is more concerned with charts, tests, and having lunch at a lab at every opportunity, while believing it will all make a difference in produced image.

Exactly with such disrespectful and bashing comments you destroy the discussion culture here.
You claim that those who use and like the progress in lens design "does not make image work", some are more concerned with charts or interested in talks at the lab etc.
Have you seen the photographic work of those you are judging? Have you seen Mark prints, or Nikos, or mine?
No, you have not.
You are just showing your general prejudices.

There are millions of images from the beginning of photography that stand as objective proof the first group is onto something, and fractional amount of images that might give the second group something to stand on.

Totally missing the point of the discussion here. You can make bad and good images (from an artistic point of view) both with old and new lenses. That is nothing new, and no one here of the group you are criticising has ever denied that.

But as some like to say, if test chart makes your eye better, go with it by all means, nothing wrong with using any means to feel better.

A test chart here was only used to demonstrate technical differences in an easy, descriptive and clear way. I don't care much for them in my photography. There I care for all the differences I see in my images.

 

[JParker]

Let's not forget how this drifted (not surprisingly) from Leica R to tubes, microscopes, and test contests.

And who started this drift?
You and some others. First it was denied that the latest R lenses had significantly improved, later xkaes claimed differences may be only seen under a microscope (none of the modern lens users here has talked about microscopes)........and so on.
The whole drift was started by those claiming that there has not been any significant progress in lenses.

If someone is satiesfied with his old lens - absolutely o.k. No one here has ever said anything against that.
But claiming the old lenses are as good as the new ones, is a completely different thing. And it is simply not correct.

 

[brbo]

In this thread there are mainly two groups currently arguing: One group which owns and use both the old type and the new type lenses, reporting about their test results and experiences. And giving links to numerous other test resources. And one has posted pictures giving very clear proof as well.
And the other group, which only owns and uses the old type lenses, which says they know better, and those who are using the new lenses are wrong. No test results, pictures, or links to sources given. And this group is also implying that the millions of photographers who have switched in the last 20-30 years to the newer type lenses are also wrong.
Go figure.......

Maybe you can sort us into those two groups, by names, so we don't wonder around not knowing which group we belong to?

I had a couple of new generation Leica M lenses (50/2, 28/2), a couple of new generation Zeiss M (50/1.5, 35/2), still have Leica cameras with the newer Voigländer aspherical lens (50/1.5), Konica 28/2.8, Sonnar 50/1.5 from fifties, Canon 35/2 from sixties, Xpan with 45/4 and 90/4. I've had fine medium format TRLs and Hasselblad SLR, still have LF camera.

I've printed RA-4 and BW as big as I can at home with latest APO Rodagon 50/2.8 and other "lesser" enlarger lenses. I can honestly say that none of the fancy lenses made my photographs any better. Maybe I could force myself to imagine that I see something more in prints from negatives that were taken with a lens that costs 10x. Maybe. But I can't show that difference to you even if I scanned the print on my drum scanner. I'd have to tell you which one is "better".

(I'm listing all this crazy good gear that I have with quite a bit of embarrassment just to show you'll have a tough time to accuse me of prejudice)


So, which group do I belong to?

Maybe there is a third group which won't see any meaningful (or even any at all) improvement by spending a lot of money on new lenses? I would be very interested in new lenses if they were just as good but were smaller, lighter, built better... Btw, I never said that there were no advancements in lenses.

 

[xkaes]

The whole drift was started by those claiming that there has not been any significant progress in lenses.

The key word here is "significant". Under high enough magnification/enlargement the "progress" may be visible -- hence my use of "microscope" -- but others are of the opinion that under "normal" circumstances the "progress" is not visible/obvious/relevant/worth the price.

Call it "drifting", "arguing" or whatever. I call it "making a valid point".

 

[ph]

sirs,

undoubtedly labtestst do differ, but practical use is what counts.

I tend to use my devices outdoors and somtimes do happen to drop them on the ground. A plastic CANON 50 I had split in two while an M3 with summicron survived both falls and rainstorms.

Both gave acceptable snaps for my purposes, but I do prefer robust equipment.'

p.

 

[Mark J]

Thanks JP for your helpful comments.
I don't really know how some of the users (eg. brbo ) here cannot see the difference between lenses - especially using an Apo-Rodagon ( ps. why would you need to have one of those ... ? )
However most of my experience of using old/new SLR lenses including Leica R was using first Kodachrome, then Provia 100F, using a good slide projector.
It was fairly obvious what the differences were - but I suppose a slide projector is a microscope of sorts !
I could see the difference between the VERY good Zeiss Contax 100mm macro and the Leica 100/2.8 Apo macro, on the same subjects ( Ulm cathedral ) for instance.
I could still take fine pictures on various lenses, but the extra bit of snap and colour differentiation was always a pleasure to see.

 

[koraks]

Just a reminder to all: debate is evidently fine, but please keep it polite and respectful.

 

[Mark J]

I know this is an off-topic question, but is there a section on the forum for posting digital, eg. DSLR photos ?
I've looked twice but haven;'t found it. Or maybe it's a subscription-only section ?

 

[MattKing]

I know this is an off-topic question, but is there a section on the forum for posting digital, eg. DSLR photos ?
I've looked twice but haven;'t found it. Or maybe it's a subscription-only section ?

You can post in the Galleries - just be sure to chose the right medium when you do the upload.
There are also lots of existing Mixed Workflow threads like, e.g. "Post your Landscape photos here" where you are welcome to do so - here is the link to that one: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/post-your-landscape-photos-here.160921/
For technical discussions, we actually need a sub-forum that deals better with things like lenses on digital cameras. In the meantime, I'd suggest using the Digital Cameras and Capture sub-forum, found here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/digital-cameras-and-capture.360/

 

[brbo]

Thanks JP for your helpful comments.
I don't really know how some of the users (eg. brbo ) here cannot see the difference between lenses - especially using an Apo-Rodagon ( ps. why would you need to have one of those ... ? )

Well, as you can see, I'm just as puzzled as you are. I should be seeing huge improvements in my photos when using pricy gear vs. my plastic fantastic 50/1.8D, right? Maybe it's that "huge" (or any word for that matter) is just a bad metric when trying to figure out what we are seeing in our photos. Therefore my genuine interest in seeing the huge differences newer lenses bring to people's prints here.

As for the Apo Rodagon, I don't need one, so I sold it. I got it on eBay. Seller was selling it as a regular Rodagon 50/2.8, but pictures showed a lens that was clearly an Apo. I was the only bidder and got it for 57.50 pounds with shipping. I compared it with a number of lenses and couldn't tell the difference on the typical enlargements I would do from my 35mm negatives. I also tested how much truth there is in a myth that an Apo will give more "pure" hues for colour prints. As I suspected, no truth in it.

Which one is the Apo?

 

[Mark J]

My guess is that the upper picture is with the Apo, but the exposure is also slightly less, so that could be the real difference, in making the colours look a bit more saturated.
I agree with you that the differences between a 50/2.8 Rodagon and an Apo Rodagon 50/2.8 are very slight and hardly visible at A4.


ps. Thanks for the info, Matt.

 

[brbo]

Exposure is slightly more (not less) for the upper picture, so a bit more density and consequently a bit more saturation. The difference in exposure wasn't intentional, it was only noticeable when the prints were totally dry. The upper lens is El-Nikkor 50/2.8N, the lower is Apo Rodagon 50/2.8 (this link will take you to the flickr photo with the title visible (I'm pretty sure I put the names from top to bottom)).

 

[JParker]

Maybe you can sort us into those two groups, by names, so we don't wonder around not knowing which group we belong to?

I've written "mainly" two groups. Just because most of the discussion here was done between these 'poles'.

I had a couple of new generation Leica M lenses (50/2, 28/2), a couple of new generation Zeiss M (50/1.5, 35/2), still have Leica cameras with the newer Voigländer aspherical lens (50/1.5), Konica 28/2.8, Sonnar 50/1.5 from fifties, Canon 35/2 from sixties, Xpan with 45/4 and 90/4. I've had fine medium format TRLs and Hasselblad SLR, still have LF camera.

So you are mainly using 35mm rangefinder equipment currently. I am using SLRs. I've reported in one of my above posted posts about my recent rangefinder test with the described lenses. I've enjoyed the test, really liked the excellent results of the Summicron, really liked the excellent build quality and craftmanship of the Leica. Felt amazingly in my hands.
But overall, I've realized SLR is working better for me and my photography than a rangefinder. Just personal preference. So I will stay with SLRs.
And my results with the older and newer SLR lenses are as described by me. I can clearly see the differences.

 

[JParker]

The key word here is "significant". Under high enough magnification/enlargement the "progress" may be visible -- hence my use of "microscope" -- but others are of the opinion that under "normal" circumstances the "progress" is not visible/obvious/relevant/worth the price.

My definition of "significant" is very straight and simple:
It is when I see a clear difference in my pictures. Period. So when I see a difference
- in optical prints of 24x30 centimeter or larger ( I rarely print smaller)
- with chromes on a light table with 4-5x and 12x loupe
- in projection on a standard screen of about 1.50 meters width (standard size in a normal living room).
And in all these cases I can see the differences.

 

[xkaes]

I like extra large prints too -- but I normally admire them from a distance. No "microscope" needed.

 

[JParker]

Thanks JP for your helpful comments.

No problem . I really appreciate that you are sharing your knowledge here from a lens designer perspective. Very interesting indeed.

I don't really know how some of the users (eg. brbo ) here cannot see the difference between lenses - especially using an Apo-Rodagon ( ps. why would you need to have one of those ... ? )
However most of my experience of using old/new SLR lenses including Leica R was using first Kodachrome, then Provia 100F, using a good slide projector.
It was fairly obvious what the differences were - but I suppose a slide projector is a microscope of sorts !
I could see the difference between the VERY good Zeiss Contax 100mm macro and the Leica 100/2.8 Apo macro, on the same subjects ( Ulm cathedral ) for instance.
I could still take fine pictures on various lenses, but the extra bit of snap and colour differentiation was always a pleasure to see.

I totally agree with you especially concerning slide projection. Projection is definitely the way to get perfect, breathtaking quality with film. And it really benefits from the improved lenses.
I've always been quite disappointed with the results from scanning in comparison. Projected slides and optical prints have always been much better in quality in my case.

 

[JParker]

I like extra large prints too -- but I normally admire them from a distance. No "microscope" needed.

And again you are the only one here referring to "microscope". Totally out of topic. None of those photographers here reporting from their positive experiences with the newer lens designs has mentioned that a "microscope" or a disproportionately high enlargement are needed.
I look at my pictures from normal viewing distances. And there I see the differences clearly. If I would go closer, I would see even more differences. But normally I don't do that, as I am not a "grain peeper" .

 

[xkaes]

And again you are the only one here referring to "microscope". Totally out of topic. None of those photographers here reporting from their positive experiences with the newer lens designs has mentioned that a "microscope" or a disproportionately high enlargement are needed.

Of course it's pertinent. You made reference to 12X loupes. That's magnification. Whether you use a loupe, make an enlargement, use a projector, get super-close to a print, or use a microscope, it's all about magnification. That's what microscopes do -- and that why I put the word in QUOTES.

I, and several other people, are talking about comparing "normal" prints, "normally" viewed -- not heavily enlarged images using "whatever" magnification method.

 

[koraks]

Seems like the disagreement doesn't involve further development of argumentation.