What is the attraction to vintage Leica lenses?

[D&A]

The 75mm 'Cron and the 28mm 'Cron both have a very similar drawing signature, excellent micro contrast and reasonable macro contrast that doesn't go too far over the top. I call them nicely balanced, despite both being ASPH designs. So I guess I split down the middle.

That's exactly what I was trying to get at with regards to the 28mm Cron asph and 75mm cron. Then there are lenses that deviate from this balanced formular to one side or the other by a small but noticable measure such as the 75mm Lux f1.4. A bit more forgiving when shot wide open with a bit less micro contrast and a lot less macro contrast, but stop it down to f4 and it comes close to fitting in the the other two (the 28mm cron asph and 75mm cron). Then we can also cite multiple lenses that deviate even further from this balanced approach...the 90mm cron asph on one side to almost an extreme and say a 35mm Lux pre asph to the other, especially when it's shot wide open. These two lenses though have more specialized applications and when used as such, excel in their own way.

As I suggested previously, I think though such assessments with regards to these lenses also depend greatly on the type of body they are being used on....M9/M240, MM, Film etc. That's why a lens with favorited characteristics on one type of body may not be so desirable or used to great extent on another type, and thats aside from the intent of lens application with regards to imagery.

Great discussion!

Dave (D&A)

 

[jonoslack]

As I suggested previously, I think though such assessments with regards to these lenses also depend greatly on the type of body they are being used on....M9/M240, MM, Film etc. That's why a lens with favorited characteristics on one type of body may not be so desirable or used to great extent on another type, and thats aside from the intent of lens application with regards to imagery.

Great discussion!

Dave (D&A)

HI Dave - quite agree!
. . . and it doesn't just depend on which body they're being shot on, but even more with respect to the subjects one is shooting. Landscape/Portrait, open/closed aperture, close/distant etc.

Ashwin was right to simply show us some images - it's really hard for any words to convey anything very useful beyond 'like' 'don't like'

My problem is the same as Kurt's - which is that I find it really tough to 'learn' lots of lenses at the same time, so shooting with a few consistent lenses is the easiest way for me to keep sane!

all the best

 

[D&A]

Very much agree Jono! With regards to your last statement, I too find that unless I use a lens for a lengthy period of time under a variety of conditions and lens settings, not to mention shooting different subjects, I'll never really get a handle on the intricacies of a lens's optical properties.

I only mentioned different bodies as we've often seen a lens's characteristics often appear to change somewhat, depending on the kind and type of body it's mounted to. It may be partly the particular application we apply to use of the lens with regards to a body, or simply the influence the digital sensor (or film) of a given body has on the optics and "look" of a lens.

Dave (D&A)

 

[asiafish]

For travel photography the choice is easy, take the smallest and lightest one that meets your minimum image quality/characteristic requirements.

 

[erudolph]

...snip... My very simple opinion is to work on your vision. No lens' rendition (as if it was so obvious) will ever interfere. That's plain bs.

IME, the f/1 Noctilux shot at f/1.4 focuses my vision in a specific way. It doesn't interfere, but it definitely directs.

 

[mmbma]

It is a fad that every Leica fans go through. Like classic cars, these lenses have their alure but in the end you still want to fall back to your modern car.

I had gone through a line up of classic lenses and sold most of them. Although the bokeh, the leica glow, the diffraction create what some people call "magical" renderings, they are still defects in the lens design and have been improved by modern lenses. In the end I find I go for the sharpest and the most neutral representing lenses for my serious work.

 

[jonoslack]

Hmm I seem to have just bought a rigid summicron from 1957 . . .cla'd and in excellent condition - I blame you lot boo!

 

[Knorp]

Hmm I seem to have just bought a rigid summicron from 1957 . . .cla'd and in excellent condition - I blame you lot boo!

What ? The Rigid instead of the AA ... :shocked:



Happy shooting.

 

[Double Negative]

If nothing else, there's a HUGE number of them out there (and not just by Leica). Depending on the lens (and condition) they can range from cheaper than dirt to ridiculous. It all comes down to what image characteristics float your boat and your budget.

Just cuz it's old - doesn't mean it sucks!

 

[asiafish]

Just bought a 50mm f/2 Summitar fully serviced from Sherry Krauter, should have it next week. Already own and absolutely love my Jupiter 3, tuned and serviced by Brian Sweeney.

Much more fun than any modern 50 I've tried.

 

[rayyan]

Also, just because it is old, doesn't mean it is better than the new either!!

I, too, dream sometimes that a rigid something or the other takes better photographs than the new asph.

Then I wake up.

 

[jonoslack]

Also, just because it is old, doesn't mean it is better than the new either!!

I, too, dream sometimes that a rigid something or the other takes better photographs than the new asph.

Then I wake up.

Hi Ray - I have better things to dream about! :angel:
But 'better photographs' is quite a hard thing to define I'd say, and different can often be stimulating.

all the best

 

[rayyan]

Hi Ray - I have better things to dream about! :angel:
But 'better photographs' is quite a hard thing to define I'd say, and different can often be stimulating.

all the best

Jono, I dream of many things. And about many things too. Camels feature prominently in some.

Better photographs, better lenses, better cameras, better light and so on and and so forth..whatever floats your boat, or makes my camels go farther...

Take care.

p.s I agree with Marc in that the modern lenses I own have a consistency that is to my liking. To call a len's shortcoming a ' something ethereal ' and swoon over it is not my cup of tea. It might be for others. More power to them.

With my current stable of software, I generally can coax the type of rendering I like from my photographs. To me, and me alone those photographs are ' better ' than the others that I have taken. To others they might be rubbish and worthless..but that is the nature of things..

I posted this photograph in color and now in b&W. Which is the ' better ' one for me? Only I can make that call.
Since it is not taken to satisfy a client but only myself..and take space on my wall.

 

[Vivek]

It is a fad that every Leica fans go through.

Not just Leica fans. Did you hear about this: The Lomography Petzval Portrait Lens by Lomography — Kickstarter ?

That design is dated and quite flawed.

Look at some of Jim Collum's captures with lenses like that.

 

[jonoslack]

p.s I agree with Marc in that the modern lenses I own have a consistency that is to my liking. To call a len's shortcoming a ' something ethereal ' and swoon over it is not my cup of tea. It might be for others. More power to them.

With my current stable of software, I generally can coax the type of rendering I like from my photographs. To me, and me alone those photographs are ' better ' than the others that I have taken. To others they might be rubbish and worthless..but that is the nature of things..

Hi Ray
I think you are proving my point that Better Photograph is hard to define, even personally. This shot is technically excellent, but nothing like as interesting as some of the grainy and raunchy shots you've posted elsewhere.

Like Marc and you, I like and take advantage of the consistency of the modern lenses, but it's hard to deny Ashwin's skill at using the inconsistency of older lenses to make lovely images.
All the best

 

[docmoore]

Hi Ray
I think you are proving my point that Better Photograph is hard to define, even personally. This shot is technically excellent, but nothing like as interesting as some of the grainy and raunchy shots you've posted elsewhere.

Like Marc and you, I like and take advantage of the consistency of the modern lenses, but it's hard to deny Ashwin's skill at using the inconsistency of older lenses to make lovely images.
All the best

Please...

Ashwin takes advantage of the eclectic setting in whatever place he visits or resides....artists, raconteurs, street denizens, gorgeous family, beautiful people...so any cokeglass lens will look good...and his skill at PP is wonderful.

Most of the rest of us need all the help we can get...

And really, all the buy and sell involved in finding just the right vintage lens will afford you some stellar new glass....

JMHO.....

And Ashwin....love all you post ...keep it up as I live vicariously through all of the great posts here.

Bob

 

[jonoslack]

Please...

Ashwin takes advantage of the eclectic setting in whatever place he visits or resides....artists, raconteurs, street denizens, gorgeous family, beautiful people...so any cokeglass lens will look good...and his skill at PP is wonderful.

Most of the rest of us need all the help we can get...

And really, all the buy and sell involved in finding just the right vintage lens will afford you some stellar new glass....

JMHO.....

And Ashwin....love all you post ...keep it up as I live vicariously through all of the great posts here.

Bob

To be honest Bob I don't think a lens ever saved or made a photograph, any more than a camera. But the rigid 'cron sure will look pretty on my silver M, and I don't suppose the snaps will be any worse than usual :facesmack:

 

[docmoore]

But the rigid 'cron sure will look pretty on my silver M, and I don't suppose the snaps will be any worse than usual :facesmack:

No more so than a plebeian Cron non-Asph...not a bad one in the line in my
view....since Mandler at least.

Key to a great photo is content, execution placed a far second.....

So no Super califagilisticexpialidosious Apo Asph Cron in your near future?:ROTFL:

Bob

 

[D&A]

Bob Wrote--->>>"So no Super califagilisticexpialidosious Apo Asph Cron in your near future?"<<<

I would venture "not" Bob...haven't you heard? It's flairs badly and completely wipes out any semblance of a useable image if any point light source enters the frame...LOL!

OK, seriously, sometimes a lens with a known recognizable signature often can inspire, well at least in the eyes of the user. The way it draws an image isn't quite the point. Take a writing instrument (a expensive pen). Some who write stories I suppose might be inspired to be creative or get their creative juices flowing in using an expensive well known writing instrument as opposed to a 19 cent Bic pen. Whether it actually does is open to debate. Of course content takes a front seat, whether it be writing, capturing an image, a painting or possibly anything where one has to choose their instrument or components of it, in order to create. It's an endless argument that I believe has no definitive answer. We each look for something different and assign a value in terms of how important it is to our creativity.

I've seen as many notable and emotional moving images from modern optics where I dare say the optics used added little of a recognizable signature to the image(s) which were top notch to begin with. I could clearly see that the modern optic contributed little of a signature to the image or alternatively if something was recognizable in terms of an optical signature, that it may have derived from having been manipulated in post processing.

Personally I like both types of lenses (old/classic and new/modern) depending on my objective. Where edge to edge sharpness is required, I'll go modern. Alternatively where I want some element of a lens's signature to possibly add characteristic to the image, I might go opt for a vintage or known lens with a signature. Both have their place in my opinion but generally they are not my over-riding concern in creating an image, the content is.

Dave (D&A)

 

[monza]

I drove a Porsche Cayman at the dealer launch event a few years ago...nimble, taut, and fast...it was briefly tempting; the contrast stitching on the leather seats, and of course the new car smell. But the visceral experience of my old air cooled flat six with it's throaty racer exhaust note, that drips oil on my garage floor and puffs a bit of smoke when I start it, not to mention the challenge it presents when taking a corner at high speed (no, don't you dare lift, the engine is behind the rear axle, remember?)...is just too damned inviting. No doubt, the new cars are technological marvels, just like the ASPHs and the APOs are. Go ahead, shave 0.5 sec from the lap time...tease me with that gorgeous FLE rendering...but I am no longer tempted.