Mandler or Karbe?

[satybhat]

So, on this whole Mandler-look thing, I happen to be a bit waylaid on the rendering issue. Clinical / non-clinical etc makes no difference to me (crosses heart: I am a physician !!) unless I see hard evidence, but I am interested in some intentional spherical aberration if I can get it at a reasonable price..... So what would be your definitive desert-island-Mandler-aberrated lenses?

Does any one know of any comparative reviews of something like say a 35v4 cron vs 35asph on same subjects ? or say a 75 cron vs 75 lux at f2? or any asph vs pre-asph?
Ashwin Rao seems convinced in one earlier thread, citing a few beautifully captured photos.. Are there any more nice examples in this regard to guide a newbie's eye? i.e., IS THERE AN EVIDENCE BASE?
Or is it all a hype and fad?
Cheers,
Saty

 

[Vivek]

Evidence for what? The whole stuff is based on beliefs. Either you do or you do not.

I posted a few shots on the Sony forum saying that they were from a "Mandler Magic" lens. They look the part. Only it was not even a Leica lens.

 

[D&A]

Saty,

It's very subjective...like a large group of people looking at a piece of artwork.....some love it, some think its OK and some dislike it. It can't be measured or even quantitated. Similary, many of the Mandler designed era lenses have varing degrees of SA and other optical anomolies which often lend a to a captured image , certain characteristics or a signature. It differers between both the various lenses he designed as well between samples of the same lens in some cases. They are of course mostly caused by optical aberations in design, the very thing modern lenses designers try to eliminate. Like other forms of art, some prefer perfection with as few of these artifacts as possible, whereas others prefer their lenses to introduce a healthy dose of an optical fingerprint.

Of course its not restricted to Mandler designs only but many of his lenses have a good balance of performance along with these recognizable charateristics...some of which is referred to as the Leica glow.

Not sure if there is a definitive list, but much has been written about each one of these Mandler era lenses. The only way for you to know what you prefer in the look of your inages, is to actually try out some of these lenses and compare to their more modern counterparts, which are far more optically corrected.

Dave (D&A)

 

[uhoh7]

Mandler designed many lenses. The idea they all have some "look" or rendering is hysterical. But there are some nice ones

 

[aDam007]

I one time had a 50 Summilux-asph go wonky on me.. It was still sharp, contrasty, vivid and there were minimal CA/issues as per a usual ASPH-Lux. The funny thing is though, the whites started to bloom. Almost as if I were using a cinema filter. Like some kind of black magic pearl fog nonsense.

I think with that said, there is "something" to the look of older Mandler glass. But it's not something that's evident throughout the whole range. Not something that's reproducible in all situations, and not really something that's always useful/wanted in every image.

Honestly I gravitate towards newer lenses. As I don't like gimmicks, I just like clean moments in time (if I can help it). Besides, I've already had enough drama with my 50APO. Four times to Germany, it's there right now, and I'm having withdrawal symptoms. I definitely don't need lenses sporadically acting up, or should I say, giving me the "Mandler magic"..

EDIT: I will add, I am a fan of a few Mandler designs.

 

[Paratom]

I have used lenses from Mandler and from Karbe and agree with others: it is highly subjective. It also depends if you use them on M9 or M type 240 (or maybe film).
The problem I see with the older Summiluxes (35/50/75) is that they can suffer from focus shift and hard to focus accurate.
I now mainly use the more modern designs/lenses. Specially on the "new" M I find they work very well.
Its a matter of taste. Frienkly I find it more important to be able to focus a lens accurate vs small differences in rendering. Its not night and day difference.

 

[D&A]

I have used lenses from Mandler and from Karbe and agree with others: it is highly subjective. It also depends if you use them on M9 or M type 240 (or maybe film).
The problem I see with the older Summiluxes (35/50/75) is that they can suffer from focus shift and hard to focus accurate.
I now mainly use the more modern designs/lenses. Specially on the "new" M I find they work very well.
Its a matter of taste. Frienkly I find it more important to be able to focus a lens accurate vs small differences in rendering. Its not night and day difference.

The one area I would respectfully disagree with is that its not a night and day differenxe. In many instances it is regardless of M9 or 240 platform. Just one of many examples is the f1.0 Noct vs the 0.95 Noct. Another are the some of the early 35mm Lux vs the asph counterparts. Even the difference betwee. The 35mm Lux asph pre FLE renedered very differently than the latest FLE. I'm not refering only to Mandler designed lenses but more sell correxted lenses vs. Their less corrected predisessors. No right or worng...everyone has their optical objectives or in other words favorite flavor of ice cream.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Paratom]

The one area I would respectfully disagree with is that its not a night and day differenxe. In many instances it is regardless of M9 or 240 platform. Just one of many examples is the f1.0 Noct vs the 0.95 Noct. Another are the some of the early 35mm Lux vs the asph counterparts. Even the difference betwee. The 35mm Lux asph pre FLE renedered very differently than the latest FLE. I'm not refering only to Mandler designed lenses but more sell correxted lenses vs. Their less corrected predisessors. No right or worng...everyone has their optical objectives or in other words favorite flavor of ice cream.

Dave (D&A)

Yes, there are differences. I still wonder if one would shoot images with the different lenses who could tell which image which lens. The Noctilux 1.0 vs 0.95 might be easy, but old 50/1.4 vs 50/1.4asph? The 35 pre asph had a little smoother bokeh but I dont find my images look that different since using the FLE version.
Beside I would guess the slightly out of focus images to the older lenses

 

[D&A]

You could say the same thing about taking the same subject (same lens) with a M9 and M240. Many times one might not be able to tell one image from another...other times the differences are obvious. Same thing with the various pairs of lenses we are discussing. Often times its the subtleties that make the difference amd thats why people often pay big $$ for a particular lens that often draws an image in a certain way.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Vivek]

:worthless:

Mandler or Karbe or Lee? :shocked:

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

 

[Paratom]

You could say the same thing about taking the same subject (same lens) with a M9 and M240. Many times one might not be able to tell one image from another...other times the differences are obvious. Same thing with the various pairs of lenses we are discussing. Often times its the subtleties that make the difference amd thats why people often pay big $$ for a particular lens that often draws an image in a certain way.

Dave (D&A)

I agree... I still think sometimes the subtiles are overrated. Even though I might be one of those who overrates them .)

 

[thompsonkirk]

Saty,

I would suggest you buy a Mandler lens in whatever is your preferred focal length, try it out, and sell it if it's not what you expected. You can't lose much and you'll have the only sort of evidence that counts, from the experience of your own work.

On the Wikipedia under his name, you'll find a list of lenses he designed. The only one I'd avoid is the 35mm Summilux, which is a beautiful lens with one drawback of unpredictable performance: if there's a light source just outside the frame, you can get a big arc of flare that ruins the shot.

Kirk

 

[jlindstrom]

A fantastic Mandler to begin with is the last 50 summilux pre-asph E46 with builtin hood. Not as bitingly sharp wide open as the new Asph version, but sufficiently sharp still. Great for portraits and gets sharp enough for everything else stopped down. I liked the lens especially on M9.

75 Summilux draws nicely as well, but is far more expensive and the size of a small baseball bat. Also has some focus shift to deal with..

90 elmarit-m last version is a personal favorite as well. I loved that lens! And it's the cheapest by far & easiest to find out of these 3 lenses.

//Juha

 

[D&A]

A fantastic Mandler to begin with is the last 50 summilux pre-asph E46 with builtin hood. Not as bitingly sharp wide open as the new Asph version, but sufficiently sharp still. Great for portraits and gets sharp enough for everything else stopped down. I liked the lens especially on M9.

75 Summilux draws nicely as well, but is far more expensive and the size of a small baseball bat. Also has some focus shift to deal with..

90 elmarit-m last version is a personal favorite as well. I loved that lens! And it's the cheapest by far & easiest to find out of these 3 lenses.

//Juha

Juha, I adore all three lenses mentioned and for various reasons sold two which of course there is always regrets. I will say though the Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f1.5 in many ways is a strong contender in 50mm lenses that have a wonderful look.

Dave (D&A)

 

[thompsonkirk]

Yes – I compared my Mandler 50 (the version mentioned above) and my Sonnar. IMO the Sonnar has more attractive bokeh at largest aperture, because the Lux has a tendency at f1.4 to show parallel lines along straight edges. Both introduce some focus-shift.

(And I still have both – never decided which to sell, and have also been using 1.4 LTM Nikkor.)

Kirk

PS, parallel lines disappear from Lux bokeh @ f2.

 

[uhoh7]

I have the 75 Lux and 28 v3, and had the old 50/1.4, but really, as a masterpiece, I think the 50 cron v4 is his best.

75lux:

Trailer Bed Post by unoh7, on Flickr

50 cron

Gold Dust by unoh7, on Flickr

both shots on A7.mod

 

[thompsonkirk]

I've been thinking along that line, too: with such high ISOs, who needs Summiluxes any more?

Kirk

 

[jonoslack]

I've been thinking along that line, too: with such high ISOs, who needs Summiluxes any more?

Kirk

Hi Kirk
I'd been thinking that as well . . . . . but that ability to limit the depth of field is hard to give up on (not so important at 75mm perhaps).

 

[algrove]

Does not this make Summicrons more useful with high ISO capable cameras? I for one seem to seldom use my Summiluxes at 1.4. Sold my Nocti for the same reason especially after getting the APO50.

I also much prefer the size of crons to luxes. Ever since getting the APO50 I have come to more appreciate the E39 lenses which epitomize Leica.

Don't get me wrong, as there are definitely places/situations where a lux comes in handy, that is why the 35 FLE and 21/1.4 will stay around for a while.

 

[algrove]

You know this thread got me to thinking that next week when I am due to receive the M246 I will try my Summicron 40 and Summaron 35/2.8 early on. Maybe my little 226g Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 will also finally get some meaningful use. My Hector went caput when the aperture blades gave out, but do not fear I now have an old E39 Elmar 135/4 to play with. I found an 46mm metal tele hood (generic) which I use on a step up ring 39-46 on this 135 and it looks quite handsome since the hood is about 35mm long. Perhap overkill, but I had DAG even 6 bit code it for lazy me.