The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

M Monochrom . . . . it's not a review folks

fotografz

Well-known member
Leica (and hasselblad) distinguish a few of their lenses, but not all, as apochromats. The 75mm cron and the 250 apo (blad) come to mind. all their lenses are corrected for chromatic aberration as well. anyone comment on the difference?
The difference between what and what?

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish lens designations.

For example, some Zeiss 35mm manual focus lenses for the Contax 35mm cameras had floating elements to correct near focus, but never advertised the fact, nor used it as a marking on the lens like FLE on other Zeiss lenses.

My Sony 70-200/2.8G is designated as an APO optic:

Sony SAL-70200G Zoom AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM SAL70200G

No designation on the lens to confirm that.

-Marc
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Leica (and hasselblad) distinguish a few of their lenses, but not all, as apochromats. The 75mm cron and the 250 apo (blad) come to mind. all their lenses are corrected for chromatic aberration as well. anyone comment on the difference?
I have lenses from Nikon that are designated APO. They are in a different league of their own. Original prices of them also make the 50AA like a bargain.

I also have some special UV lenses made by Zeiss. One of them, an UV-Planar 62/2 is corrected from 220nm to 1000nm which make it a bit more APO than the 250mm Hassy Sonnar.

In comparison, makers like Sigma, Rodenstock and Schneider use APO designations as they wish and they are in a league of their own as well.

Leica's first APO (that I know) lens, the 180/3.4 Telyt is the first to use the low dispersion fluorite (again that I know of) and such. A true APO lens.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
found this:

Achromat, Apochromat, Superachromat - What is the Difference?

long story short:
achromat: basic chromatic aberration is controlled by lens element design and brings most wavelenghts into focus (primary spectrum)

apochromat: the next level, done by special fluorites, (glass composition), etc. gets rid of the secondary spectrum (what did not get precisely focused by the above). the Leica 75 apo-cron

superachrormat: even more, specifically important for longer focal lengths, like the blad 250 and 350 superachromats
 
Last edited:

rayyan

Well-known member
A very knowledgeable and literate dicussion by photographers whose talents and experience far exceeds mine. I mean this very sincerely.

However, I am just a simple snap shooter, who is lucky to possess some of the lenses being discussed here.

My take is a very simple one. I just use a lens. I like it or not.

" When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectures with much applause in the lecture room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars."

Whitman; By the roadside.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
In honor of the M9 Monochrom, I just fitted the first roll of XP2 into my 'new' 1971 Nikon F plain prism and stuck the Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 on it. Let's see where the next 24 exposures takes me. :)
status report:

Still working on that 24 exposure roll. I'd forgotten just how heavy a Nikon F was. Swapped to the 85mm f/1.8 for a bit. It is a lovely old beast but damn heavy. So one driver for me in obtaining a Leica MM would be that it weighs in at a bit less than my B&W film camera ... ;-)

Actually, I saw a report yesterday that if the MM is successful, Leica is considering a Monochrom version of the X2. Now that would be just right ... an X2M with optical viewfinder or EVF would be almost irresistible.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Actually, I saw a report yesterday that if the MM is successful, Leica is considering a Monochrom version of the X2. Now that would be just right ... an X2M with optical viewfinder or EVF would be almost irresistible.
Interesting report!

It is more than likely that one of my NEX' will take that place for me (debayered an all) quite soon.

I might buy the 50 AA Summicron to see if it would make any difference at all. :)
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Just a note on lens character and preference:
When the 50mm f/1.4 ASPH was introduced, the internet screamed and yelled that it was harsh and had rough bokeh. It was "clinical" and overpriced (at 2500 or so). Now people are saying it has character and nice bokeh and it is sharp without being harsh etc. I have had the lens the whole time, and I don't think it has changed with age!
On the matter of the 35/1.4 ASPH versus the 35mm f/1.4 FLE, I think apart from their shifting patterns, pretty much anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart without rigorous testing. You might THINK you can tell them apart, but I have a feeling double blind testing that accounted for sample variation would rule that out pretty fast. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't have a big stake in the game...I sold the ASPH for the FLE, and they look identical to me. I don't feel cheated, as I sold it to fix the focus shift, and it does that brilliantly.

Finally, on the matter of the 75/2 and 75/1.4, I also have both...got the 75/2 when it came out with the intention of comparing and selling the one I liked better, but I did not want to part with either. Above f/4, I don't think you will be able to tell them apart...at least not in most situations. The 75/1.4 obviously has a crazy look wide open and until about f/2.5, while the 75/2 handles much better and has visibly better optical performance at f/2 to f/4.

Overall, I think the main thing is to choose what you like! I don't think Leica is going to make any lenses for "character" alone, since what it means varies so greatly to different people. I think Leica has mostly made the lenses as optically perfect as they can for their history. This involves some aesthetic choices in balancing aberrations, but as technology has advanced, more aberrations can be corrected and the lenses keep getting optically better and better. If you LIKE aberrations (they can be nice!), then the thing to do is use any of the older lenses that work on an M...around 80 years worth of choice now. Pick the period you like. Personally, I don't think a technically perfect lens can be regarded as harsh...at least not unless the reality it is transmitting is harsh. If you use a perfect lens on a delicate scene, you are going to get a delicate picture. The lens is just the window to the scene you are trying to show...if you want that scene to be softer, then you need some curtains! Old lenses, vaseline, softars...there are lots of options.

And what is character? Do old lenses have more character because they look more like the great photos of the past? Did the photographers of the sixties and seventies lament the lack of character in their lenses, so unlike the ones in the 30s and 40s? I mostly use the modern Leica designs as they have what I would consider a pleasing character...they perform very well and do not do anything unduly distracting from the photo.

Sometimes I will use other lenses if I feel like it will serve a purpose. For example, here's a softy taken with a 1960s Canon 35/1.8 on the M9:



But on another day, on wanted a more neutral representation of the scene, so I chose a modern Leica lens:
 

ohnri

New member
hi there
I can't tell you how much I disagree. The Mandler lenses are lovely, but there are a lot of truths around which need to be examined. I give you two examples

1. The 35 cron IV is the bokeh king
Just like the new FLE it sometimes gets it badly wrong
2. The 75 'cron APO is too clinical
Spend an hour with one and you'll appreciate it's organic and delicate character.
My favorite lens for my M9 is my Noct f/1.
I shoot a lot of cage fighting and sports images with it. It's really my one Leica lens that I feel I can't replicate with anything else.
The new Noct is fascinating but, to me, ultimately uninvolving.
The current 50 'lux looks lovely but I can't see replacing my Noct with it so I think I will be forever unfulfilled.

My least favorite is my 75 'cron APO.
I have spent a lot more than one hour with it.
I find it uninteresting and dull. My Nikon 85 f/1.4 on my D3x is far better, in my opinion of course.
I may get a 75 'lux just so I have at least one lens longer than 50 mm for my M9 that I like.

I always respect your opinion but I do feel there is more than a kernel of truth to the old saw about Mandler lenses having more character.

As an aside, I have been shooting Leica RF's since I was 9 years old. I still use the same IIIa that I shot with then. But the new 50'cron has me thinking I may be reaching the end of the line with Leica glass.

In my last exhibition I had one image that was printed over 100 inches long. I shot it handheld in the studio with my D3x and Nikon 24mm f/1.4. I had plenty of resolution and people could get quite close. If I need more I can get a D800E.

It is going to be hard to see where $7,000 standard lenses and, probably, $15,000 exotic lenses fit into my workflow. For the studio, I prefer my Nikon. For action, I don't need that kind of resolution, not to mention my focus is never EXACTLY perfect with rapidly moving subjects. Therefore, much of the benefit of the new super lenses would probably be lost.

My Leica action photos would benefit far more from a camera with a decent buffer, better high ISO and a modern LCD.

If the M10 does all that I will get one.

But, Leica glass may be reaching the point where it doesn't help me.

Also of note, my Olympus EM5 has recently replaced my M9 as my light weight but high quality travel camera.

Anyway, just musing.

All the best,

Bill

Fashion meets Fighting

April 2012 – Bill Fulcher |
 

Brian S

New member
The last lens that I used on the M9 was an uncoated 5cm f2 Sonnar from 1935. Last night I modified it to focus to 0.75m, RF coupled. I really want to see what these lenses do on an M9M.
 

D&A

Well-known member
On the matter of the 35/1.4 ASPH versus the 35mm f/1.4 FLE, I think apart from their shifting patterns, pretty much anyone would be hard pressed to tell them apart without rigorous testing. You might THINK you can tell them apart, but I have a feeling double blind testing that accounted for sample variation would rule that out pretty fast. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't have a big stake in the game...I sold the ASPH for the FLE, and they look identical to me. I don't feel cheated, as I sold it to fix the focus shift, and it does that brilliantly.
Stuart,

I enjoyed reading much of what you wrote and of course it's all very subjective. The one statement I personally and respectfully would disagree with is your feelings, about the differences (or lack thereof) of the image charateristics of the 35mm Lux asph (pre FLE) vs current FLE version. For myself, I felt image wise these lenses were worlds apart until approx f4.5-5.6 . In fact I and a couple of aquantences actually did very carefully controlled double blind tests and all of us could pick which images went with each lens. We had three pre FLE lenses to test against a FLE lens. This is aside from focus shift of the pre FLE which indeed as you mentioned, was brilliantly fixed with it's successor.

Ask 100 Leica users about lenses and I suspect one will get close to 100 different opinions...much like ones favorite flavor of ice cream. All good indeed!

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Stuart Richardson

Active member
Thanks Dave. Of course, if you see a difference, I believe you. But is it really "world's apart"? The lenses have essentially the same optical formula...if we are talking ice cream here, it's less like a different ice cream flavor rather than one being in a cone and one being in a cup! Anyway, I agree with you in principal that you ask 100 people and you get 100 answers. I just think sometime's people's passions override their logic in their comparisons of lenses...you build up a lot of fondness for lenses through working with them over the years, and there is the tendency to overstate some of the differences at times, especially since these differences are often hard to measure, difficult to accurately compare across two lenses, and largely governed by personal preference anyway...
 

Brian S

New member
I did read that they had to create/agree on a new monochrome DNG file that will work for MM and perhaps other cameras in the future? So, if the SE software process on that new file format, then it's similar to what you suggested?
There is no need for a change to the DNG file format, which is based on the TIFF 6.0 specification. The TIFF specification from 1992 handles monochrome images (single-plane) and allows the number of bits per sample to be designated. The TIFF spec also allows multiple images from successive frames to be stored in the same file, but few software packages implement that feature. In 1995 I had to write software to parse multiple monochrome images stored in a single file and re-write them 1 image per file. My wife had a 1024x1024 monochrome digital microscope camera and needed to process the images.

The M9M is a true monochrome camera. The information coming off of the CCD and stored in the files is monochrome. JPEG allows for grey-scale images, as does BMP and others. When looking at the created images on an RGB screen, on your computer it is necessary to take the single pixel value from the grey-scale image and replicate it in the RGB planes of the Video card for display. This is of course true for all grey-scale images that you view on a color screen.
 

Brian S

New member
Wow. Sometimes I forget how lucky we are on GetDPI to have more-often-than-not civilized conversations with differences-in-tastes taken into consideration and appreciation for when someone puts information out into the community.

Reading through the immature, unappreciative, dismissive banter on Range Finder Forum nearly made me sick to my stomach.

GetDPI may have ties to "Dante's Inferno". But RFF is truly a descent into hell.
Hard to believe that the RFF discussion on the Monochrome M9 was well over two years ago.

Would yo buy a B&W only 16 BIT M9 ? - Rangefinderforum.com

Near the end, I called Kodak about making a monochrome CCD to replace the one in the M9, they said they could. Roger asked at Photokina about making a Monochrome M9.

Would yo buy a B&W only 16 BIT M9 ? - Page 7 - Rangefinderforum.com

What amazes me- Look at the Poll results of the 2+ year old RFF survery and the one on the Leica forum, taken after the camera was introduced.

Survey: Your opinion about the new LEICA M MONOCHROM - Leica User Forum
 
Top