leica old glass favourite (pre 1970)

<p>Jean-Marie, it is true that creation should be the objective in good photography. It is that elusive thing that I chase but only rarely embrace. The problem we have is that the camera wants to see the world exactly as it appears, at least in a two dimensional sense. We have to bend it to our way of seeing (as Freeman Patterson says better than I can in his book on "photography and tha art of seeing") and that is often a process that is not so straightforward.</p>

<p>I find your OP valuablre in the sense it makes me think about the advantages of differing and older optics. What I would really like to see sometime (or undertake myself, if I wasn't so lazy) is a good and complete comparative study of various well regarded optics, in shots of the same subject and same lighting conditions. That is the type of quantitative/qualitative information that I have not enough of to make a good decision on older optics. While I tend to prefer a very well corrected lens (budget permitting) and then seek ways to modify what it gives me (various filters, intentional blur or out of focus adjustment, veiling of the lens or of the lens filter by condensation or an applied greasy film, etc.), I think that your search for lenses with specific qualities is good and I am no doubt missing something (although I do enjoy using on occasion an early 1930s Elmar). The problem is that it gets a bit like describing the subjective qualities of good quality audio speakers: There may be differences but it is hard to qualify them.</p>

<p>I wouldn't be too hard on digital. I stil shoot both film and digital and find the latter valuable in trying to get what I am seeing in front of me, which is not usually a simulation of reality but a recreation of how we see the subject. I have about 20 B&W rolls to process this week and many days of enlarger work if the images are worthy. In the film only days there were many who were seeking simply a "simulation" of what they were looking at, as you appropriately call it. Film can slow us down and incite us to think more about what we are seeing, but then nothing prevents us from doing the same with digital equipment.</p>

<p>Some of my lenses with 4 or 6 diaphragm blades give light ghosts that I dislike in backlit images, and provide out of focus highlights in other images that are also not very "nstuiral" looking. Apparently, most older lenses have 10 to 15 bladed diaphragms that provide more circular and pleaasing out of focus points. I guess this is also related to Bokeh OOF effects, but it seems to be related as much to lens design. My old 35mm Summicron (type 4), which I foolishly sold, had great OOF rendering, while my Nikon 50mm lens of the time, otherwise quite sharp and contrasty, led to double-line type OOF details that were not very attractive. Both had shortcomings in terms of optical corrections, but apparently of a different type. </p>

<p>Jim Trahan, do you know with which lens your "donut" example was taken?<br>

To me this looks like a reflector type, or catadioptric, or "mirror lens" of at least 500mm focal length. None of the discussed lenses have anything in common with that astrophotography/supertele stuff.<br>

IMHO, this has nothing to do with this thread!</p>

<p>It always pays to do a spelling check on even a hastily written text. I humbly admit to failure in my preceding text. </p>

<p>Knut is right about the donut shape OOF bright points, the sign of a mirror or catadioptric lens, which is not related to LTM or M Leica lenses. Apart from lens aberrations, which can affect the bokeh quality, diaphragm blades that more closely approximate a circular opening lead to smoother and more pleasing bokeh, although the difference is often more pronounced at less than maximum apertures where a hexagonal opening becomes more visible in the OOF areas of the image. Modern Leica designs, by generally correcting more fully lens aberrations, seem to have a harder and less smooth bokeh, such as the difference between the 35mm Summicron of 1979 and the 1990s redesign with an aspherical element. Apparently the older 35mm Summilux had a wispy rendition near its full aperture, which was in part due to coma distortion. <br>

</p>

<p>Knut, that was an extreme example found on the web and used only to demonstrate a bad circle of confusion with brightlines at the periphery. You are correct that this exact signature is found on large focal length mirror lenses, where the mirror mount has blocked the center of the circle. That's my fault for presenting an example that would overstate the obvious.</p>

<p>Brightlines at the edge of the circle of confusion can be found on lenses with shorter focal lengths. I don't know that these have a name so I have always called them 'donuts'. Rick Denney's site does a good job demonstrating the different types of circles of confusion among different lenses incuding one at 85mm. <br>

<a href="http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm">http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm</a></p>

<p>Here are examples of 'donuts' on 50mm and 80mm lenses, including a pentagonal and circular aperture:<br>

<a href=" </p>

<p>My apologies for the confusion. It is only these brightlines that I wish to call out as something to look out for. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :-)</p>

<p>Another interesting lens is the <a href="http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/853551-post1.html"> Hektor 73mm /f1.9</a>. It was produced from 1931 to 1942. It is a “portrait” lens that produces pictures in a pleasant sort of 1930s softness and shallow DOF. Color saturation is lower than in modern lenses; there is a tendency to flare that has to be controlled. It is a challenging lens to use, especially wide open. 70 years after it was made, it is still interesting.<br /><br />At 6.3 or higher, it becomes sharper. <br /><br />Here a typical portrait: soft, low contrast, low color saturation.<br /><br /></p>

<center></center>

<p><img src="http://www.leicaphoto.net/discus/messages/7/4695.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="791" /></p>

<p>PETER I looked at this lens, it seems to be rare and the price is horrendous. Praise yourself lucky to have one!</p>

<p>ARTHUR Sorry if I get a bit excited about not wanting to go digital. I get so worked up when I see kids 'photoshopping' their images, brainlessly hitting away on the keys until they see something that appeals to them. For me photography is like an artisanship: it cultivates love of labour, patience, in addition to pride and satisfaction. <br>

I really enjoyed the 'cat on the verandah' print which in the mean time has disappeared from the bottom of this page. It has all the qualities I am looking for: lovely luminance; natural setting; a sense of symmetry. Was that taken with a leica? The thumbnail is a little small and our outdated crippled server does not allow us to explore portfolios or galleries (the system cuts out most of the time). Would you display it in this thread, I think that would be highly appropriate and maybe invite some more 'old glass' style samples from members. </p>

<p><em> I get so worked up when I see kids 'photoshopping' their images, brainlessly hitting away on the keys until they see something that appeals to them.</em><br>

Before digital, people used to show you whole packets (often several packets) of en-prints from the drugstore, totally unedited, or home movies where they'd simply spliced 10 4-minute reels together and left in all the out-of-focus overexposed wobbly footage. There's nothing specifically brainless about digital, if you want to be brainless,you can do it in any medium!<br>

PS: If you want a quirky LTM lens, don't ignore the Jupiter 3 (50 mm f1.5). Easy to find (from the Ukraine), essential to have even apparently good examples checked by a repairman for correct collimation (it may be necessary to move the whole lens assembly up and down the barrel to bring the optical focus and rangefinder into coincidence) but then a nice lens comparable to a Leitz f1.5 Summarit for 1/4 the price (£200 including servicing versus £700 to 800 for a Summarit that won't be perfect). Similarly, the f2 85 mm Jupiter 9 is worth a look for shallow-deoth portrait shots.</p>

<p>Peter, have you got a 73mm shot at f8-f11? That one was quite interesting and descriptive of its qualities</p>

<p>DAVID Thanks. I had forgotten about the russian lenses; my eastblok lomo enlarger served me well in the seventies. They also produced some fine binoculars and microscopes for give away prices. I would prefer to get leica glass though; I have waited far too long, getting all to complacent with my nikon and hassie. The prices are really stiff and dont make much sense from a quality perspective: the 50/2.8 elmar (fortunately) is cheaper that the 35/3.5 elmar, seemingly a less satisfying lens.<br>

And yes, you are right, I admit readily that many digital users are just as diligent and earnest about their work than their colleagues or predecessors in the traditional format. Not that we have much of an alternative in colour photography anyway. Still, I just love the looks and the feel (and the smell!) of a fine fibre paper print. </p>

<p>I had a Summicron-M 35/2, type 11309, second version. If one is wanting to shoot color this is a great lens. Nothing bad to say about it or the 35mm focal length which goes well with a M camera and its viewfinder.<br /> I currently have a Summicron-M, 50/2, Type 11116, collapsible. The lens is in perfect condition. It's my favorite for B&W and portraits. The lens is not very usable wide open in flat light due to low contrast. But between f/2.8 to f/4.0 it's fabulous. Circular highlights. Incredible detail in cross light. Smooth B&W tonal range and out of focus rendering. It's small size goes hand-in-hand with what a M camera is all about. The last reason the lens is a favorite is the focal length is flexible and the build quality and physical look of the lens interesting.<br /> I have a Minolta 40/2. I'll use it as a modern reference when discussing the collapsible. The 40mm is great with the 35mm frame on the M-4P and later cameras. Its FOV fits into the 35mm rangefinder frame more accurately than a 35mm cron. But if you trying to blur the backgrounds and shoot people the older collapsible is better. The lens is also great for landscapes. It and the rigid have very high resolution. With strong side light the lower contrast helps record tones while the high resolution records details. Later optic designs backed off the resolution and biased the lens towards higher contrast. At f/ 5.6 and to f/11 there should not be much difference in a 1956 lens and a 1980 designed lens. The magic is at f/2.8 to f/4.</p>

<p><em>the 50/2.8 elmar (fortunately) is cheaper that the 35/3.5 elmar, seemingly a less satisfying lens.</em><br>

This is another aspect of Leicaphilia - anything that is rare and in good condition is worth big bucks (totally without regard to whether it produces good pictures). Stuff like the Leica IIIg "Three Crowns" (made for the Swedish military), Leica IIIa "Monte en Sarre" (ordinary Leica IIIa quite cheap, this version just the same apart from the 3 words stamped on it), Luftwaffe IIIc, etc. I say again - if you can't find the Leica Summaron 35mm or Elmar 5cm, you want, Canon lenses are well worth a look - and the Jupiter 3!</p>

<p>Jean-Marie, here is the link to the cat and balcony photo which is a low-resolution copy of my original B&W print. The negative was a 1980s shot in late afternoon of an abandoned farmhouse in Ste-Hénédine (Beauce region, near Quebec City) where the cat seemed to be the master of the house (the uncropped image shows the earth and rubble underneath the gallery, which was more likely the cat's favourite haunt). I used a Leica M4-2 and very probably a 1980 Summicron 35mm (although I also had a 28mm Rokkor-M) that has a nice quality, although it may not be typical of somewhat earlier Leica lenses. I am trying to relocate that negative for further printing. It was likely Plus X or FP4. The print was made on Ilford Galerie mat paper. Late afternoon light and Leica optics seem to go well together, for whatever reason.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/11472737">http://www.photo.net/photo/11472737</a></p>

<p>Attached is a test photo made with a 1933 (approx.) uncoated Elmar 50mm. it doesn’t show perferctly crisp detail in the tree branches (not noticeable in this low resolution image) and thereby gives a moderately soft rendition (it came with a Leitz enlarger I bought a few years ago).</p><div></div>

<p>Donut shapes! Typical of the collapsible Summicron 50mm f2.0. A friend was convinced either my lens was really faulty, or else i had a mirror lens! The lens is fine, sharp but not contrasty some haze but the"DONUT" shapes is seen in this series.</p>

 

<p>If you want that vintage look, and not have to eat sardines for months, take a look at the LTM Canon (black)35mm f/2.8. At wider apertures it has a wonderful vintage "glow" and stopped down it sharpens up nicely with a slightly desaturated, lower contrast appearance. It's one of a handful of lenses I keep simply for it's unique look. </p><div></div>

<p>ARTHUR Thanks for the ctalink, much appreciated. The elmar 50/3.5 shot is right up my alley as well. I will try and download some of the nikkor work that illustrataes what I am looking for. Yours is a perfect example of a landscape 'proportioned' image with a 50mm lens: perhaps it was ceopped a little?</p>

 

<p>LOUIS Right out of 1930's magazine! Great! There is <strong>chrome 28mm canon</strong> (2.8) for sale here, but I read somewhere that the chrome version (earlier I suppose that the black one) is not nearly as satisfactory as the black one (not sure if that means even softer or just plainly not worth buying!?). <em><strong>How does yours perform at long distance/hyperfocal setting</strong> </em>(landscape)?</p>

<p>Trying my lick with some samples:</p>

<p>Trying my luck with some samples:<br>

<img src="../photo/15318895" alt="" /></p>

<p>And again</p>

<p>hopefully this time</p><div></div>

<p>The above print was scanned on a cheap colour printer and although the scan is a bit less contrasty than the original, the image gives an idea of what I have in mind with a 'softer rendition' of reality. I used the zoom nikkor 25-50, manual focus, on an F2, the widest of the pre 1980 nikon zoom lenses. The lens is pretty sharp and contrasty when focused on nearby scenes, but on infinity focus and pointed towards (but not into) the brightest part of the sky, the 72mm front element did flare a bit. </p><div></div>

<p>Jeam-Marie Here is one</p><div></div>

<p>ANTHONY Like the details in the shade and the soft but clear seascape and grainy clouds in the background. This lens can handle light. Which one is it? </p>

<p>Jean-Marie. Re Boatbuilder, I used the 50mm Collapsible Summar at F5.6 with Ilford XP2 film </p>