The reason I keep my Mandler 50mm Summilux-M around.
-bob
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!
Noctilux : 1.0 to 0.95 : anyone not happy ?
- Thread starter proenca
- Start date
-bob
Jack, I much agree with almost all your thoughts (boxing gloves can be kept in the drawer), especially regarding Mandlers prowess in designing lenses that draw in a very special way. Where I disagree is on two points:
1. Although I should have a head of gray hair by now, (but don't) its not a prerequisite in order to recognize and appreciate Mandler's lens designs and their attributes.
.
2. The second is your selection of the one of the Leica 28mm f2.8 lenses. Not sure which one you were referring to? The 28mm f2.8 asph is very modern and of extremely high contrast, so much so, it often blows out highlights with ease. Bitingly sharp but I wouldn't say it has any abundance of a signature, especially in the Mandler sense.
The Leica 28mm that comes to mind is the Leica 28mm f2.0 Summicron asph. Its sharp and yes it is asph, but it"s more forgiving and renders in a gentler way...sort of like the 75mm Summilux.
The other choice might be one of the Leica 28mm f2.8 pre asph lenses although they do lack some corner sharpness and does not have much in the way of a strong signature.
I very much like your choice of a 21mm!
The 50mm Lux pre asph as mentioned by you and Bob is a lovely lens, but right up there is the current Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5. Its look is very much Mandler in style (and I'd give it the nod for a 50mm) but it max. resolution overall falls short of the Lux 50mm pre asph.
What's interesting is of course to use R lenses on a M body, would require use of one of the M240 varients or the M10...yet one could say if any one digital M body has a recognizable look and signature, even with its imperfections (much the same Mandler lenses had imperfections as opposed to being technically perfect), it would have to be the Leica M9 series. Then again with the M9 body, you couldn't use R lenses as you well know.
I will let it be known that I plan on repurchasing all the Mandler lenses discussed in this thread (including the 50mm f1 Noct), just as soon as I can locate the winning power ball ticket I misplaced in my sock drawer...LOL.
Dave (D&A)
1. Although I should have a head of gray hair by now, (but don't) its not a prerequisite in order to recognize and appreciate Mandler's lens designs and their attributes.
.2. The second is your selection of the one of the Leica 28mm f2.8 lenses. Not sure which one you were referring to? The 28mm f2.8 asph is very modern and of extremely high contrast, so much so, it often blows out highlights with ease. Bitingly sharp but I wouldn't say it has any abundance of a signature, especially in the Mandler sense.
The Leica 28mm that comes to mind is the Leica 28mm f2.0 Summicron asph. Its sharp and yes it is asph, but it"s more forgiving and renders in a gentler way...sort of like the 75mm Summilux.
The other choice might be one of the Leica 28mm f2.8 pre asph lenses although they do lack some corner sharpness and does not have much in the way of a strong signature.
I very much like your choice of a 21mm!
The 50mm Lux pre asph as mentioned by you and Bob is a lovely lens, but right up there is the current Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5. Its look is very much Mandler in style (and I'd give it the nod for a 50mm) but it max. resolution overall falls short of the Lux 50mm pre asph.
What's interesting is of course to use R lenses on a M body, would require use of one of the M240 varients or the M10...yet one could say if any one digital M body has a recognizable look and signature, even with its imperfections (much the same Mandler lenses had imperfections as opposed to being technically perfect), it would have to be the Leica M9 series. Then again with the M9 body, you couldn't use R lenses as you well know.
I will let it be known that I plan on repurchasing all the Mandler lenses discussed in this thread (including the 50mm f1 Noct), just as soon as I can locate the winning power ball ticket I misplaced in my sock drawer...LOL.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Dave,
No problem on the gray hair
I was actually thinking of the 28 CRON and not the pre asph or asph Elmarits -- I will edit my above to correct that. The 28 Cron was so nice, it ended up usurping my beloved 35 pre-asph Lux -- another wonderful optic -- and so much so I eventually sold it due to lack of use. My normal carry pack ended up being the 21, 28, 50 and a 90 TE of all things, but I had a good copy that I liked the way it drew, and it served it's purpose very well whenever needed. I owned the 75 Lux and 90 Cron at the time too, but as well as they drew they were biggish and I preferred the smaller lens to carry. Today would be different, though I *might* also get another 90 TE in addition to the 4 above just because
No problem on the gray hair
I was actually thinking of the 28 CRON and not the pre asph or asph Elmarits -- I will edit my above to correct that. The 28 Cron was so nice, it ended up usurping my beloved 35 pre-asph Lux -- another wonderful optic -- and so much so I eventually sold it due to lack of use. My normal carry pack ended up being the 21, 28, 50 and a 90 TE of all things, but I had a good copy that I liked the way it drew, and it served it's purpose very well whenever needed. I owned the 75 Lux and 90 Cron at the time too, but as well as they drew they were biggish and I preferred the smaller lens to carry. Today would be different, though I *might* also get another 90 TE in addition to the 4 above just because
Yes, that 28mm cron (asph) is lovely and a great choice for that focal length. I know its subjective, but personally I would choose the 90mm Elmarit-M f2.8 over the 90mm TE although a good copy of the 90 TE is nice. The Elmarit-M was the latest and last of the 90mm f2.8 lenses (with it's built in hood) before that line was discontinued and both structurally and optically I feel it was the best compromise. Wide open it renders much like the 28mm cron but with a touch of softness, ideal for portraits and close up nature/flower shots. Stopped down to f4 and beyond, it has the same degree of sharpness as the 28mm cron, plenty sharp but with a roundness to the way it draws, but without the bitingly sharpness and sometimes harshness of the 90mm f2.0 cron AA. The 90mm Elmarit-M has become a favorite of many.Dave,
No problem on the gray hair
I was actually thinking of the 28 CRON and not the pre asph or asph Elmarits -- I will edit my above to correct that. The 28 Cron was so nice, it ended up usurping my beloved 35 pre-asph Lux -- another wonderful optic -- and so much so I eventually sold it due to lack of use. My normal carry pack ended up being the 21, 28, 50 and a 90 TE of all things, but I had a good copy that I liked the way it drew, and it served it's purpose very well whenever needed. I owned the 75 Lux and 90 Cron at the time too, but as well as they drew they were biggish and I preferred the smaller lens to carry. Today would be different, though I *might* also get another 90 TE in addition to the 4 above just because
Even though I am sometimes drawn to the faster bigger lenses such as the f1 Noct or 75mm Lux, I sort of feel the M body balances best with the smaller f1.4 and especially f2 lenses. On a Leica SL body though, the larger lenses would be ideal for balance.
Not to throw this thread off topic....as technically near perfect as the 50mm f0.95 is for a lens of this speed, I would personally choose a good copy of the f1 Noct. I don't feel its a one trick pony as when shooting it at f4 or f5.6, it renders much as a classical Mandler lens and fits right in with the 21mm Elmarit-M, 28mm cron, 50mm Lux pre asph and similar.
Dave (D&A)
Dave, I agree for the most part. I really preferred the way the 90TE drew over the regular 90 E wide open -- slightly softer and lower contrast, and sharpened up to outstanding from 3.5 up. The 90 E was stellar and the (slightly) better optic overall -- but the diminutive size of the TE kept it in my bag all the time, where the other 90's always seemed to have been "left behind" when I actually needed them
Re the Noct -- I liked it but... It was a beast by Lecia M standards, it had an inconveniently long focus throw for an M lens, and the 50 Lux was a better performer right from F1.4 up. So my conclusion on the Noct was the only reason to own it was if you were going to shoot it wide open to utilize it's f1.0 (or 0.95) -- and I simply didn't shoot that way very often and had the Lux at f1.4 which delivered a very similar look, so eventually sold myself off the Noct in favor of my beloved 50 pre-asph Lux. Admittedly though, the Noct was a lens I bought and sold at least 3 and maybe 4 times because I did like the way it drew wide open and missed not having it in my cabinet :facesmack:. But also, every time I owned it, it seemed to mostly just sit in the cabinet, always grabbing my 50 Lux instead --- such was my Leica M madness :ROTFL:
PS and advance apologies to OP for drifting OT a little, but hopefully it's forgiven This is one of my 90 TE shots from a trip to Southern France in 2000 -- I'm going to guess it was Plus-X or FP4 developed normally, then scanned on a Nikon 9000. The lens was probably set to 5.6 to give me a bit of focus-error room to capture the action. While it appears I might be in the ring with matador, I can assure that was not the case and I shot from the stands!:
Re the Noct -- I liked it but... It was a beast by Lecia M standards, it had an inconveniently long focus throw for an M lens, and the 50 Lux was a better performer right from F1.4 up. So my conclusion on the Noct was the only reason to own it was if you were going to shoot it wide open to utilize it's f1.0 (or 0.95) -- and I simply didn't shoot that way very often and had the Lux at f1.4 which delivered a very similar look, so eventually sold myself off the Noct in favor of my beloved 50 pre-asph Lux. Admittedly though, the Noct was a lens I bought and sold at least 3 and maybe 4 times because I did like the way it drew wide open and missed not having it in my cabinet :facesmack:. But also, every time I owned it, it seemed to mostly just sit in the cabinet, always grabbing my 50 Lux instead --- such was my Leica M madness :ROTFL:
PS and advance apologies to OP for drifting OT a little, but hopefully it's forgiven
This is one of my 90 TE shots from a trip to Southern France in 2000 -- I'm going to guess it was Plus-X or FP4 developed normally, then scanned on a Nikon 9000. The lens was probably set to 5.6 to give me a bit of focus-error room to capture the action. While it appears I might be in the ring with matador, I can assure that was not the case and I shot from the stands!:
Last edited:
Jack, great shot! Looks like a scene I would have expected taken in Spain, not France (one too many glasses of wine...LOL!). You also hit the nail on the head in one important aspect when it comes to 90 TE vs. 90 Elemarit-M (90 E). Size and balance. The 90 TE as you mentioned wins hands down in that department. The 90 E is a bit long and somewhat front heavy. Agree too that the slightly dreamy look is there far more in abundance with the 90 TE...but the issue with the 90 TE is finding a good copy. There are a lot that don't sharpen up too well upon stopping down. Again, its very subjective when choosing all these lenses which have "a look".
LOL...your story regarding the f1 Noct...both in buying and selling countless of times is a very common story with this lens (myself included). Bet most every copy has seen multiple owners during their lifetime. I almost said it would be fun to know of each lenses travels too, to far flung corners of the earth, but something tells me it most often saw the walls of an equipment cabinet more than anything else..LOL!
I have/had a love-slighty dislike for the 50mm Lux asph. Very close to the signature of the f0.95 Noct (as you aptly described) and thus technically a tour de force with a very nice look, but certainly no Mandler 50mm Lux pre asph.
I often wondered.....Peter Karbe of Leica has a predilection for very sharp, high performance, near optical perfection in designing lenses. He's certainly succeeded on that front. I often wondered if that might have been Mandler's goals too but of course was constrained at the time by what means were available in designing lenses and that the way his lenses "drew" were simply a consequence of the residual optical aberrations he was unable to remove with available means to him. Certainly computer designed optical formulas were not at his disposal. Alternatively maybe that would have been his ultimate goal (lenses with strong character), even if designing lenses today and that technical optical perfection took a back seat to other optical attributes related to image making.
Dave (D&A)
LOL...your story regarding the f1 Noct...both in buying and selling countless of times is a very common story with this lens (myself included). Bet most every copy has seen multiple owners during their lifetime. I almost said it would be fun to know of each lenses travels too, to far flung corners of the earth, but something tells me it most often saw the walls of an equipment cabinet more than anything else..LOL!
I have/had a love-slighty dislike for the 50mm Lux asph. Very close to the signature of the f0.95 Noct (as you aptly described) and thus technically a tour de force with a very nice look, but certainly no Mandler 50mm Lux pre asph.
I often wondered.....Peter Karbe of Leica has a predilection for very sharp, high performance, near optical perfection in designing lenses. He's certainly succeeded on that front. I often wondered if that might have been Mandler's goals too but of course was constrained at the time by what means were available in designing lenses and that the way his lenses "drew" were simply a consequence of the residual optical aberrations he was unable to remove with available means to him. Certainly computer designed optical formulas were not at his disposal. Alternatively maybe that would have been his ultimate goal (lenses with strong character), even if designing lenses today and that technical optical perfection took a back seat to other optical attributes related to image making.
Dave (D&A)
Re Mandler:
I remember reading an interview with him somewhere long ago, probably one of the dedicated Leica mags, where he alluded to the fact that lens design was a tradeoff in priorities, and he chose to balance the faster aperture lenses with the best resolution and contrast he could manage coupled with the aberrations he felt were friendly in the final image, as opposed to going for absolute resolution and accepting nastier aberrations. Whatever it was, he definitely succeeded in my book
I remember reading an interview with him somewhere long ago, probably one of the dedicated Leica mags, where he alluded to the fact that lens design was a tradeoff in priorities, and he chose to balance the faster aperture lenses with the best resolution and contrast he could manage coupled with the aberrations he felt were friendly in the final image, as opposed to going for absolute resolution and accepting nastier aberrations. Whatever it was, he definitely succeeded in my book
I vaguely recall reading a similar article regarding his time spent at Leica (maybe the same article), having taken place when he was in Midland Canada, although I don't recall the specifics.
The part that intriques me is what sorts of nastier aberations might have been introduced if he attempted for more well corrected, sharper lenses? Field curvature? Possibly and/or a less attractive bokeh.
The study of optics is of course a complex field of which each optical designer of lenses has their own expertise and set of objectives to achieve.
Finding a balance seems to have been Mandlers goal although lenses like the 35mm Lux pre asph to some errs on one side of the equation, whereas the current 35mm Lux asph FLE is on the other. The lens inbetween these two is the 35mm Lux asph pre FLE and its optical signature falls sort of squarely between the two. Sharp even at f1.4 but draws lovely without being clinical or too perfect.
Dave (D&A)
The part that intriques me is what sorts of nastier aberations might have been introduced if he attempted for more well corrected, sharper lenses? Field curvature? Possibly and/or a less attractive bokeh.
The study of optics is of course a complex field of which each optical designer of lenses has their own expertise and set of objectives to achieve.
Finding a balance seems to have been Mandlers goal although lenses like the 35mm Lux pre asph to some errs on one side of the equation, whereas the current 35mm Lux asph FLE is on the other. The lens inbetween these two is the 35mm Lux asph pre FLE and its optical signature falls sort of squarely between the two. Sharp even at f1.4 but draws lovely without being clinical or too perfect.
Dave (D&A)
