leica flare resistant lenses

<p>My Summicron 50/2 is what is commonly known as a "version 2," probably from the late 60's. It is a recent purchase when I found my DR Summicron from the same era will not work on an M9 (also a new, lightly used acquisition).</p>

<p>While I can't say for sure that flare is a design consideration for Leica, accounting for internal reflections is well within the scope of lens design. Zeiss promotes this fact in their flack sheets, just as Leica touts compensation for higher order aberations.</p>

<p>Using a filter on a digital camera can have unintended consequences with regard to veiling flare. A sensor is much more reflective than film, and can develop a sympathetic effect with the flat, parallel surface of a filter. This seems to be more pronounced with retrofocus lenses. I find I get better contrast if I avoid using filters, even UV or polarizers, for landscapes and closeups, easily seen in an A/B comparison. Using high quality, coated filters (e.g., B+W or Helios) helps, but does not eliminate the problem.</p>

<p>Re-Wolfe:<br>

That was image 21 & there is conceivably some burnt in flare in image 20; but what about the direct sun and sun reflections off water as in image 22 & 26. (same book) In those I can see no evidence of flare at all.</p>

<p>Edward - Read something similar about the first summilux 35, notoriously flare prone. When the owner tried it on his digital camera the flaring only got worse. He ended up experimenting with differnt shapes of hoods and found that the rather expensive and hard to come by rectangular summicron 50 hood improved matters visibly.</p>

<p>James - Yes i agree; some truly amazing compositions against the sun, also in his other books, using uncoated glass; pity we haven't got more detail about the particular equipment and circumstances of his photographs... </p>

<p>James - But of course that isn't really surprising. The Elmar 5cm used by Wolff is a simple Tessar design and even with uncoated glass, internal reflections must have been minimal.<br>

It bears, therefore, little relevance to the behaviour and the corrections of the later, more complex, lens designs at Leitz Wetzlar.</p>

 

<p>Interesting comment, Jean-Marie, about the Tessar design and maybe something also true to some extent for the simple Gauss design (of which Walter Mandler was an excellent designer, even though he seemed to consider the Gauss design a piece of cake compared to his more complex later formulations for Leica).</p>

<p>I very much like the Tessar lens (my modern 50mm Elmar-M), which competes well against others at f4 (even 2.8) and smaller apertures. It's lesser flare may be why some prefer the 4 element design to those of more complex faster or wider angle optics for highest quality B&W rendition. It also makes life easier by its better ability to focus infra red spectra. </p>

<p>Hi Arthur - elmar m is a precious retro lens. Now that Leica has bought up the Westlicht auction house we might perhaps expect some more golden oldies being revived?<br>

You have extensive landscape experience. What is your best leica lens to take on veiling glare? And what is the difference with flare anyway, physically?</p>

 

<p>and Arthur - forgot: your elmar m has amber and blue coating, yet it is said to have single coating; how does that work? I thought more colours meant multi coating?</p>

<p>Jean-Marie, I cannot answer your questions, or at least some of them, with sufficient expertise (especially the physical nature of flare), but the different colours are due I think to the different single coatings on the different elements. My best Leica optics for landscapes are the 21mm f2.8 and the 35mm Summicron (the aspherical versions). Most of my images are shot without being directed into the sun, so veiling is not something I see. My 1936 50mm Elmar f3.5 does show flare and veiling, as evidence by its low contrast. However, with good hoods and attention to light direction each of my modern optics, including the 50mm Elmar-M can produce respectable images. I also take distant scenics at infinity focus, as using a hyperfocal setting on the 21mm with infinity an outlier lowers its resolution at the edges. </p>

<p>Thanks Arthur - I am also impressed by the 21/2.8 elmarit (I suppose you refer to the pre-aspherical), nice balance between highlights and shadows. Not sure if i can handle the asph. lenses; how heavy is the 35 summicron asph's contrast in comparison to the the pre-asph (I have the v1, which is the least contrasty of the lot)? The contrast of asph. lenses is often qualified as harsh. i am thinking of landscape once more and hough I can see some artistic potential in strongly contrasting elements in a composition, I hate to lose all detail in the shadowy sections of the picture. Also the modern lenses are so expensive i could not really afford to get stuck with an unused lens in the cupboard... i tried the 28 asph 2.8 once and was disappointed both with the results and the build quality of the lens, I found the feel of focusing a bit 'wobbly'. Admittedly it is one of the 'cheaper' lenses.</p>

<p>Oh. Looked at the coating(s) of the 35/2 again (under a tubelight on the ceiling). Appears that the different colours could be attributed to the different glass types? The amber could be explained by the two lanthanum elements.</p>

<p>One of the things I look for in an objective for landscapes, especially from 35mm (given the important blow up to large prints (By large for 35mm I refer to 10X magnification, only) is the rendition of fine details, even in the corners. Normally I would balk at paying 2 or 3 thousand dollars for an aspherical Leica lens, but as a good part of my work is for sale I could claim some fiscal tax reduction when I acquired the two lenses. I also think of the cost over a long period of time. There may not be that much of a difference between the aspherical and non-aspherical optics from my point of view so I might be equally happy with my former 35mm type IV Summicron (I loved the tonality and out of focus behaviour), which I should never have parted with (A little more than $400 new in early 1980s!).</p>

<p>Perhaps the differences in the different Leica optics is well explained by Erwin Puts in his lens compendium. He gives me the impression of being less subjective than some popular reviewers. Have you read his on-line reviews or his compendium?</p>

<p>With the exception of digital photography, my better landscape experience is with 120 RF film cameras like the Mamiya 6 and the Fujifilm GSW690III, which each cost less (body + lens) than an aspherical Leica lens, and the B&W image quality is I think superior. </p>

 

<p>I do enjoy reading the compendium (you sent me a copy, thanks again) and other texts like his 'M lenses'. I do cherish the occasional moment though when he drops his objectivism and adds his personal view, usually accompanied by some apology or another!<br>

The mamiya 6 is a beautiful tool, never had the privelege of using one; the 690III on the other hand dwarfs my hands; reminds me of the old Pentax67. I moved to 35mm (or rather returned to it) after schlepping around the 500C and its tripod in the veldt for 18 months. The prints are agreeably superior in quality of detail. But I have come to realize that detail and realism is not what i look for in a landscape print. Having said that I must add that in wider and 'deeper/further' compositions I do appreciate sharpness.<br>

I do get frustrated when the light is just not settling down and i need to wait for the (in this part of the world) rather short time span of soft, late light. Veiling glare and harsh light is always ready here to spoil both resolution and contrast (hence this thread). Once last question, concerning one of the interesting insights Puts has slipped in one of his writings. He cautions the reader that older, low resolution glass will do good in high contrast resolutions, in the same way as modern, contrasty designs will solve ones frustrations in low contrast situations.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>sorry, the last bit should read:<br>

<em>older, low resolution glass will do <strong>no</strong> good in high contrast situations, in the same way as modern, contrasty designs will <strong>not</strong> solve one's frustrations in low contrast situations</em><br>

time for a nap!<em><br /></em><br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>The light in the veldt is no doubt special, perhaps somewhat like that here on the St-Lawrence when the sun goes down over the mountains, leaving for a short period a still bright sky and landscape and buildings with a certain glow not present in harsh direct light. </p>

<p>I have only 2 lenses: the non-APO 50mm Summicron and the APO 35mm Summicron. The 50 has frustrated me a good deal with veiling flare, while the 35 has not. That makes a strong reason (among several others) why I tend to keep the 35 on the camera. It's a pity, because when flare hasn't occurred, the 50 renders shadow detail like nothing else.</p>

<p>Jonathan - There is an APO summicron 35? You mean the asph. 35/2? </p>