What is the attraction to vintage Leica lenses?

[glenerrolrd]

The aesthetic (look) produced by Leica lenses seems to stir an endless discussion of the various aspects of IQ possible . I have been a late adapter of the Leica Mono (brilliant camera ) and I see a real emphasis on using vintage lenses (to recapture the look of vintage black and white photographs ) .

What is interesting is that at the same time Leica introduced the 50APO ...with statements that its real magic shows best on the MONO .

The story of the magic Leica Rigid (Version 2) and the 8 element 35 summicron are out . Old lenses are coming out of the cupboard and being sent for CLA before going on eBay.

Is it worth it ? Looking for some experience .

 

[monza]

Roger, you should have a chat with Ashwin.

 

[glenerrolrd]

Thanks Robert ...I know Aswin is sold on the vintage lenses . I understand the character aspects ...Mandler designs etc verse the newer Karbe brilliance . But there seems to be a specific attraction to the rigid summicron and the 8 element 35 .

What makes them preferred to say Version 3 ? And why no discussion of the pre asph summilux which was designed in 1963 yet you can find a modern version without the coating problems ?

 

[algrove]

I prefer the Mandler designs best on my MM except for the APO 50 and other modern APO's and 35 FLE which seem to preform best with orange filters while shooting landscapes.

 

[250swb]

I would say the abundance of resolution available from a camera like the Monochrom means that photographers are realizing they no longer need to keep up by buying 'the next best lens', but can start to discover the 'interesting' characteristics of the old lenses. Enough resolution is enough, too much becomes resolution for the sake of resolution. So in effect there is nothing left to keep up with the Joneses over, and a nice glow from a lens is nowadays seen as intentional, and not because you haven't got the latest super-corrected 'APO whatever'. That is a cynical take on it, but cynicism or not I'm glad.

But it's not totally new. Even as far back as the M8 and the Summitar started its slow rise to glory, the 90mm Elmar M was acknowledged as a more 'interesting' lens than the 90mm Summicron, and the Mandler 35mm Summilux was starting be to retrieved from the back of the drawer.

Steve

 

[Vivek]

Almost all the lenses I use with the MM are vintage but non Leica. It was a conscious choice.

I have said this here many a times and say it again: the magic comes from the Leica MM and the lens plays a very little part. Even a pre-war 1930s, uncoated, non Leica mount (would be dismissed as a piece of crap by most, including me) CZJ Tessar 3cm f/2.8 makes poetical images on the MM. Though atrociously priced and sadly out of reach for most who do photography, the MM is a brilliant tool.

(Those who said otherwise had absolutely no clue about what they were talking about! :lecture

 

[KurtKamka]

I'll play the contrarian card and say that I prefer Leica's latest lenses on the MM. They seem to provide a bit more bite than the older lenses that I've tried on the camera. The look that I get from a Canon 100/2 is very different than something like a 35FLE. Personally, I'm not necessarily trying to find a look that mimics film and find that I prefer a lens that provides an aesthetic with more clarity and contrast. The great thing about the MM is that it provides such a great palette of options.

 

[Chuck Jones]

Roger, asking if something Leica ever makes is worth it is taking your life in your hands around here dude

I can add that of my top four favorite Leica lenses out of the large collection of them I have owned over the years, two of them are older than my children. One is an early 35mm 'Cron that is just the most lovely lens all the way around, the other a 90mm Elmarit that imparts a very special magic when used for portrait work. Both of these lenses I bought from a retiring New York Times reporter many years ago, who used them and a collapsable 50mm I didn't much care for. Ironically, my other two favorites jump into Kurt's camp. I also prefer good contrast and clarity. They are my 28mm 'Cron, and the latest version 21mm Summilux. Both current designs, both fantastic glass.

I'm sure to catch flack from some for this next statement, but the earlier Summilux I did not feel were all that good wide open, which is the only reason for me to own a Summilux in the first place. I had both the pre ASPH 35mm and 50mm versions, and found both to be too soft wide open with focus problems that made it rare to get a sharp photograph in low light.

I am planning a trip down to our Leica store this week to try the MM for myself. Will try to get a couple image samples with the MM and my older lenses to post, as this is clearly a topic where :worthless:

 

[glenerrolrd]

Chuck

You nailed me on the "Is it worth it ?" ..the value proposition is always an individual decision ..often not based on much other than what I decided today .

If you read thru all the material on the new 50 APO ...Karbe states that the MONO was the first sensor that significantly out resolved the Leica lenses . If you used the 50APO on say an M9 ..it would be technically better ...but show only a marginal improvement in IQ over say a 50ASPH . But on the MONO the differences become clear . This makes the case for modern designs that can exploit the full capability of the sensor .

The counter argument for vintage is that the MONO has an exceptional DR and that a medium contrast ...high resolution design ( e.g. the rigid and the 8 element 35) can be utilized to create superb raw files . The user can then dial in the aesthetic by adding contrast (without a concern for losing tone values necessary for the photograph ) .

Now the trick is to map the performance of the extensive Leica collection into those lenses that show differently on the MONO and those that really don t . It is true that even with the M8 ...vintage lenses where being put back in use ( because now you could better control the image contrast) .

Empirical evidence (based on what photographers seem to be buying and using) ..shows that the rigid 50 summicron and the 8 element 35 summicron are the two most desired vintage lenses .

 

[glenerrolrd]

You are correct on the pre asph summilux ....but one of the desired capabilities is to produce excellent bokeh ....the 50 pre has a beautiful rendering wide open and can be dialed into a zone of exceptional sharpness by stopping down to f5.6 . Thus the lens really produces two different looks . With the asph version ...the differences are small when stopping down .

 

[Godfrey]

I don't have an MM. I use the M9 and M4-2 and GXR with lenses both new and old. Why? Because I like the photos they make, and they were affordable priced. Simple.

The new 50 APO is likely an outstanding performer. It's more expensive than I want to spend my money for, at the moment, and I don't think I need that level of performance.

G

 

[monza]

Empirical evidence (based on what photographers seem to be buying and using) ..shows that the rigid 50 summicron and the 8 element 35 summicron are the two most desired vintage lenses .

Anyone using the 35/2.8 Summaron? Puts claims it is better at f/2.8 than the 8 element at the same aperture.

 

[ashwinrao1]

I have very much enjoyed reading the thread. Ultimately, it comes down to preferences, and really there's no right or wrong answer. Kurt Kamka, Dave Martinez, and Allen, among others, has shown how well modern glass can play with the MM's sensor.

From my standpoint, having a drawer full of modern glass and now classic lenses, I prefer how the classic lenses render, and as Roger mentioned, the 35 mm 8-element 'cron and 50 mm f/2 Rigid cron in particular. Therea a host of lovely 90ish mm lenses that work well on the MM in my eyes (90 'cron E48, Canon 100 mm f/2, Canon 85 mm f/1.8, Nikkor 85 mm f/2, to name a few).

What I have found, and what very much suprised me, was that the older glass (in particular, the Rigid cron) renders equisitie sharpness (just as good as modern glass) in the center part of the frame across its aperture range (particularly when stopped down a bit, but wide open is VERY acceptable), while providing a nice OOF rendition/bokeh/whathave you....Further, there's less inherent macrocontrast in these older lenses, which in many cases were coated with BW film in mind, from what I have gathered. This provides a flatter raw file that is then even more malleable for post processing in the most pleasant ways.

What I found with modern glass (granted, my subjective experience) is that the look on the MM tends to look very clean, polished, clinical, and SHARP (maybe too sharp), and my images have tended to look a bit "HDR"ish when using this glass. Using the older glass, at least for me, as provided a more pleasant look in keeping with my BW aesthetic. There's nothing really wrong with acheiving either look, but I found that I have enjoyed the look coming from my classic lenses more, due to the interesting OOF chracteristics, advanced tonal greyscale range, and forgiving sharpness....

All in all, the MM is my favorite digital camera ever. I have nearly forgone color as a result, expect for when I play with the RX1R and M9....My modern lenses have gotten less use...it may be my journey in enjoying classic lenses, but it sure has been enjoyable...by the way, I have many more goodies to share ....images, that is

 

[ashwinrao1]

Here's a list of classic lenses that I have found be marvelous on the M Monochrom, in terms of balanced sharpness, tonal rendition. Just my opinion is all...

1. Modern lenses
-- Leica 28 mm f/2 Summicron Asph
-- Leica 35 mm f/2.5 Summarit
-- Leica 35 mm f/1.4 Asph pre-FLE

2. Classic Leitz lenses
-- Leitz 35 mm f/2 8-element Summicron (v1)
-- Leitz 50 mm f/2 Rigid Summicron (v2)
-- Leitz 90 mm f/2 Summicron (E48, 2nd version)
-- Leitz 90 mm f/2.8 Elmarit (E39; flares without the hood though)

3. Classic Canon RF glass; requires LTM-M adapter
-- Canon 35 mm f/2 LTM
-- Canon 50 mm f/1.8 LTM
-- Caon 85 mm f/1.8 LTM
-- Canon 100 mm f/2 LTM

4. Nikkor (Nippon Kogaku) LTM lenses, requires LTM to M adapter as well
-- W-Nikkor 35 mm f/1.8 LTM
-- Nikkor 50 mm f/1.4 LTM
-- Nikkor 85 mm f/2 LTM
-- Nikkor 105 mm f/2.5 LTM
-- Nikkor 135 mm f/3.5 LTM

Other lenses that work well
-- Leica Summilux 75 mm f/1.4
-- Leica 50 mm f/1.4 Summilux Asph
-- Zeiss ZM 50 mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar
-- Jupiter-3 50 mm f/1.5 LTM
-- Leitz Elmar 5 cm f/3.5 Red Dial

Solid performers, but not quite in my favorites pile
-- Canon 50 mm f/1.2 LTM
-- Canon 50 mm f/1.5 LTM (Sonnar)
-- Canon 50 mm f/1.4 LTM
-- Nikkor 50 mm f/2 LTM (Sonnar)

 

[ashwinrao1]

Robert, I'd love to try the 35 mm f/2.8 Summaron on the M Monochrom, but I havent' yet had that good fortune

 

[jonoslack]

You are correct on the pre asph summilux ....but one of the desired capabilities is to produce excellent bokeh ....the 50 pre has a beautiful rendering wide open and can be dialed into a zone of exceptional sharpness by stopping down to f5.6 . Thus the lens really produces two different looks . With the asph version ...the differences are small when stopping down .

Hi Roger
In the main I'm a Peter Karbe man - not because I think the modern lenses are 'better', but because I'm a person of small brain, and I find it easier to keep a 'look' by using lenses from the same designer. I'm still dithering about buying the 50 APO 'cron (I had one to play with for many months, but had to give it back ). Generally however I like the newer lenses - the 75 'cron being perhaps my favorite.

If I had twice as much time I'd like to explore vintage lenses, but I'm not very impressed by the internet chatterati's verdict on what's good and what isn't. I suspect that there are many gems which can be bought relatively cheaply because they ain't trendy.

all the best

 

[ashwinrao1]

I guess I am guilty charged as part of the internet chatterati :lecture:

I may have a few pictures to express my opinion better than can words... I will keep my mouth shut from here on out....and let my images do the talking, for better or for worse...

 

[glenerrolrd]

Great discussion all around . Jono s point is important (before everyone jumps on the bandwagon ) . Right now I have more than 10 M mount 50 s ...now who can possibly need that many ...and its impossible to really know how a lens performs without "using it extensively" .

I am completely happy with my 50mm lenses for color work ..generally its the 50 asph for 90% of my std lens work and in Florida ..I will go for the lower macro contrast 50 summicron . Great matches for the type of light .

But B&W is different ...the MONO creates a very flat linear contrast raw file ..with enough dynamic range to really spread the tones out . So here we have two distinct choices ...do you go for clarity ,brilliance and exceptional resolution ..beyond what is currently possible with any color sensor .....the 50 APO is the standard . Or do you favor the unique character of the vintage lenses ...and if so which ones (thank you ashwin for your lists ) .

One thing is for sure the MONO really delivers .

 

[glenerrolrd]

I guess I am guilty charged as part of the internet chatterati :lecture:

I may have a few pictures to express my opinion better than can words... I will keep my mouth shut from here on out....and let my images do the talking, for better or for worse...

Ashwin

Thank you for sharing such exceptional photographs ... any photograph that brings a smile is truly brilliant .

Roger

 

[jonoslack]

I guess I am guilty charged as part of the internet chatterati

Ashwin
You weren't charged, and you aren't guilty
These are lovely images - as are so many of your images.
I'm talking about the fact that once a lens has been deigned to be a 'classic' the prices shoot through the roof, and most people seem to go along with the verdict. I wasn't thinking of the rigid cron, because I haven't used one, and because in your hands it looks great (I've teetered on many brinks, it's the lack of close focus which puts me off).
There are, however, several other lenses, some of which I've owned, and which I won't mention in fear of offending someone else, which I don't consider to be worth ten times as much as more humble (but equally good) lenses. . . . okay, one example, because they're both really fine lenses:
Zeiss/Contax 28-85
Leica 28-90 R
At current internet values, the second lens (better by a gnat's whisker) is priced at around 10 times that of the first. THIS is what I'm talking about.

I suspect that there are a lot of unsung gems in vintage leica lenses - and some are really quite cheap..

But I do apologise Ashwin, because I've inadvertently and clumsily offended.