Why do you need a better lens ?

[anthony_brookes5]

Am I alone ? I really cannot understand why people need sharper and

better lenses all the time. Going through my prints the other day I

couldn't find a single one which I felt would have been noticeably

improved by a better or faster lens. In fact I reckon my Summar pics

are just as good as any I have taken with my 35 Summicron or 50

Summicron. Even looking at the prints on this site the latest 35 ASP

Summicron doesn't seem to produce any better pictures in subscribers

hands. I know I don't blow them up to 30 feet by 20 feet but even

then the content will win not the sharpness. There are so many

questions about Leica versus Zeiss, or Voitlander lenses and which

versions. Is everyone doing such highly detailed technical lens tests

that they have to have the sharpest, shortest focus, best edge

definition etc ?

[andrew_funderburg]

I've found that the only time I want sharper lenses or better cameras is when I'm roaving the internet boards.

 

Whenever I'm out shooting the thought of different/better gear never enters my mind.

 

Andrew

[rover]

No test just talk. Actually, I am sure that there will be some test, somewhere, but even after that there will be a lot more talk than substance. That is just the way it is. I think everyone should just find a lens, or lenses, they like and enjoy them. Lets take the ZI 50/2 Planar as an example. Will I be replacing my 50 Summicron because there is a new lens on the market, NO. I will not be replacing my Summicron for anything, no matter how good another lens may be. I just like it. I am not a potential customer for the 50 Planar. I would expect that those who are in the market for a 50mm lens would consider it though. More choices in the marketplace is a good thing. Even if it leads to lots of talk.

[Troll]

I'll bet that you don't do your own darkroom work.

[wai_leong_lee]

1. Why do you need a faster computer/car/phone/etc.? It's simple-- human desire for progress and one up-manship. We know HCB took great pictures in the fifties with uncoated lenses, but why would we want to restrict ourselves to the technologies available in his time, even if we are not half as artistic as him?

 

2. Lenses have many other qualities apart from sharpness, such as color rendition, bokeh, contrast, colour saturation, etc. I like my 35/1.4 asph not just because it's sharper than the 35/1.4, but because of the way it renders B&W tones, even if it has harsher bokeh. Others may prefer it the other way around, and like the old lens over the new.

 

3. There are Leica users who do use tripods, we can extract max sharpness from the lenses we use, esp. when doing landscape stuff. So we want the best lens out there for when we know we are using tripods.

 

Wai Leong

===

[not_the_real_bob_wilson]

I'm with Bill. If you do your own darkroom work differences that are minor on a Fuji Frontier print (from a digital scan of a negative) become much more significant.

[ray .]

There's nothing wrong with a good sharp lens. Once you get a

good image from it just use it and don't obsess over whether

there's something else that may or may not be a tiny bit better.

[richard s.]

Anthony:

 

no you are not alone.

 

I started the rangefinder/leica experience with an old 1932 uncoated Elmar 50/3.5.

Absolutely love the images it produces. But driven by the quest for faster, sharper, "better"

since then I have purchased a color-skopar 50/2.5 and a Heliar 50/3.5.

 

Looking at the prints I think that there is a clear difference between the lens. Which one

produces the best photos? Honestly, I think probably the Elmar. It does seem to have a

certain glow to it. And in some photos it appears to be just as sharp as the Heliar.

 

What would improve my photography:

1. a built in light meter on my Leica II;

2. learning to load the right film for the right occasion/conditions, and

3. thinking through the shot BEFORE shooting.

 

Buying new faster, sharper, better lens is not on the list, and yet somehow that is exactly

what I have done!

[yeti]

Any good quality lens (Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon etc) is more than enough as a tool for taking good pictures. How good these pictures will be, depends on the photographer.<br>

The search for the sharpest/best lens is the salt and pepper of our photographic lives when we talk or read or think instead of shooting. So, I think this is very important too. Am I wrong?

[frank granovski]

Why? Because I used to own some dull lenses. You might as well go for the sharpest or near sharpest, depending on the cost factor; and sometimes the cheap lens is the sharper lens. I'm still curious how the Hexanon 50mm F2 compares with a Zeiss (G2 mount) 45mm and the Leica 50mm F2. Is there a big difference? Such tests/comparisons are difficult to find. What's the new Zeiss 50mm (M-mount) like? Etc.

[anthony_brookes5]

Bill - I don't know whether your reply was to Ralph or myself but I certainly do all my own darkroom work with a V35. I sometimes get a 1 hour lab to develop a film if I'm in a real hurry. I also have access to a 6x6 enlarger which I use when on those rare occasions I take some 6x6 pics. At a local competition I put a 3.5 Elmar pic in with several M6 summicron pics - all 10x8. No one commented and I honestly don't think anyone could tell even if they were told which one it was.

[ronald_moravec1]

My answere to another question a few days ago reguarding the newest lenses was the current ones are sharp enough to get the job done. I was very disappointed with some Hasselblad portraits I did with the 150. They showed every pore and skin defect to extreme. My 100 APO does the same,maybe worse. I just bought a 90 Summicron R, not APO, for portraits. I also use a 125 Imagon on the R and 125 Hector.

 

Some of my pics with 3.5 coated elmar, Summar and Summarit are lovely. They just don`t need to be sharper. I found a 3.5 uncoated elmar in the back of my closet. DAG is cleaning it now.

[les_lammers]

I really don't lust for the latest and greatest anymore. I do recall

obsessing over lens tests in photo mags years ago though.

 

The cool thing about Leica is that you can choose from 70+ years of

lens making and design. The most modern lens I have is a 40 Rokkor filed to bring up the 35 frame. It is my favorite.

 

It is great that there are also CV and Zeiss to choose from. I may get a 50 Zeiss at some point though.

[michael_kastner]

For me, a "better" lens is never "simply" a sharper lens, etc.

<br>(a) The first 90 I had was a 2/90AA. I got rid of it because it was TOO sharp (also too big and heavy). I then replaced it with the current 2.8/90. This too, was OK but I then replaced IT with a used 2.8/90 Tele-Thin. Best one yet, for me. Of course, it isn't as modern as the other two, but who cares?

<br>(b) My first 50 was the current 2/50. I then replaced it with its predecessor (for the simple reason that I like its tab and hood). The "optics" here are said to be identical, and they certainly aren't better, the older they go...

<br>© My favourite lens at the moment is my 2/40C. It too may be less sharp and/or less flareproof than any one or two of the two Rokkors, but I don't care either.

<br>(d) IN NO CASE WILL ANY "BETTER" LENS IMPROVE MY COMPOSITION!

[frederick_muller]

There are "dull" lenses out there. Lenses that make the best subjects look flat. But more importantly, there are lenses that are very flare resistant and lenses that flare like the Fourth of July at the slightest hint of backlight or sidelight. There are real reasons to use, say, a 50mm DR Summicron in one situation and a 50mm Tabbed Summicron in another.

[andy m.]

I'm with Anthony on this one, and I also do my own darkroom work.

 

I stopped worrying about small, diminishing returns in 35mm image quality (often obtained at huge cost), when I discovered that even my battered 1950s Rollei blows away anything that my 1990s 50mm Summicron (or any of my Nikon gear) can do. Same for my Minolta Autocord which cost less than 150USD.

I do like my M2, for its wonderful build quality and quiet use etc.

[Brad_]

I wonder if Robert Frank is kicking himself over this, looking at his book, <I>The

Americans</I>, decades later. It could have been so much better with sharp contrasty

flare-free lenses.

[blakley]

<i>My answere to another question a few days ago reguarding the newest lenses was the current ones are sharp enough to get the job done. I was very disappointed with some Hasselblad portraits I did with the 150. They showed every pore and skin defect to extreme. My 100 APO does the same,maybe worse. I just bought a 90 Summicron R, not APO, for portraits. I also use a 125 Imagon on the R and 125 Hector.</i>

<p>

This is exactly why I like better lenses. When I'm doing portraits, I <i>want</i> them to show every pore and skin defect to the extreme. I also want them very contrasty. Then I blow them up to 16x20 for display. My ideal lens for this kind of work is Mamiya's 110/2.8 for the RZ67 pro II, but a really sharp 50 for the Leica will do in an emergency. I used the RZ lens for <a href="http://ompi.onemodelplace.com/OMP_Images/Photographer/60602/tn_60602_p_558BF0D7-2B3D-897A-294181164CE4DD61.jpg">this</a>,

though you won't be able to tell how sharp it is at 16x20 from this web version.

<p>

If I want a softer look, I can handhold at slow speeds (which I did using the 50/1.4 Nikkor LTM <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3119727">here</a>), or add diffusion at the printing stage

<p>

However, having said all this, the Summitar is a heck of a nice lens.

[charles_stobbs3]

I used to belong to a camera club and when slides were projected (3' x 2') you could sure see the difference in lenses from the members cameras. I remember the Leica slides were much better (I had a Retina Ia then). Now as my eyes age and I look at pictures on a monitor the differences are less apparent. Also maybe lens quality in general has improved, especially at the lower end.

[lee_shively]

Sharpness, like horsepower, is good to have when you need it. But I generally agree with Anthony. Sometimes it seems optical makers correct lenses so well the results are sterile and cold and lack virtually all character.

[al_kaplan1]

The one Leitz lens I was not thrilled with was a 50mm f/2.5 Hektor that I bought for $20 about 1963. I sold it 4 or 5 years later for $40 to one of the few collectors around back then and thought I'd done well. Now it'd be worth a small fortune! But otherwise my "upgrading" from a 50/1.8 Canon to D.R. Summicron to a second version Summicron? Not enough difference to matter. Same with my progression from 35/1.8 Canon to first and then second generation 35/2 Summicrons.

 

On my enlarger I'm still using a 50/2.8 El Nikkor I bought new in 1962 and a 75/3.5 Spiratone that was about $7.95 a year or two later. About twenty years later I bought an 80/5.6 Schneider Componon. Now when I print 120 film I mostly use the Spiratone. Why? Because an 11x14 print from a Plus-X or FP4 negative shows clearly resolved grain with the Componon but with the Spiratone the image still looks sharp but the grain isn't there ~ the lens just can't resolve it.

 

Nobody but other photographers ever really sticks their nose in a print when looking at it. Non photographers notice composition, tonality, subject matter, not biting sharpness. But it takes a constant stream of people buying new lenses to keep the factories in business. Producing a camera that lasts forever, has remained virtually unchanged for half a century except for the addition of a meter, and putting out a line of optics that for any practical reason were as good as it gets for the past 25 years or so hasn't been the greatest strategy for Leitz/Leica because the used camera market has pretty much killed the demand for new ones.

[robert_clark]

I had a thin tele-elmarit witch flared magnificently. When it didn't suffer from blinding, direct flare it could still have image degredation from veiling flare. Apart from that it was a great optic. I replaced it with the current elmarit-m, which is optically much more reliable. Unfortunately it is larger and heavier.

 

I have a lovely, small Pentax-M 100/2.8, which suits my MX. Ergonomically it is perfect; unfortunately wide-open it is soft and lacking contrast - but I often want to use it wide open, so, I'm aiming to replace it.

 

If you are putting effort and expense into what you do, what is wrong with making sure that your tools work well, do the job you demand of them and don't let you down. This is exactly how I think of my 35 lux ASPH, my 40 rokkor and my 50 cron. I just don't have to wonder whether they'll cope with any particular situation. The same with the rest of my Pentax manual focus lenses - they do the job. This does not always mean the latest and most expensive.

[robert_clark]

"I wonder if Robert Frank is kicking himself over this, looking at his book, The Americans, decades later. It could have been so much better with sharp contrasty flare-free lenses."

 

This all really depends on the mood or atmosphere you want to create. We are used to Frank's Americans being made with those lenses and it seems to fit. He obviously wanted an alienated and desolate atmosphere and the lenses and his technique gave him an aesthetic that, at least, at the time, worked for him. How much he was conscious of the possibility of making the same style of work, but much sharper, I have no idea.

 

Constantine Manos made his Greek work in the 60's and the images are considerably sharper and more contrasty - they are also printed with attention to getting the grain sharp and visible - this is a different aesthetic choice, but one that Manos was happy with.

 

What either of these photographers would use if they were to make images that expressed a similar vision, but with today's equipment choices , one can only conjecture. Manos might chose a Bronica RF instead of the Leica, Frank might use just what he did use, but he might not. He might chose to do the whole thing in large format. Perhaps you could ask him Brad?

[ben z]

As much as I read about how another lens "blows away" one of mine, I look at the shots from that lens and if I'm happy, I see no reason to upgrade. I've got a 35 Summaron from the early 50s and a 35 Summicron from the early 70s and I don't see any difference in the output at similar apertures that makes me prefer one over the other. The reason I've got them both is cause I had the Cron first for my M and then got a screwmount body and had to get a threaded lens for it. I haven't used the latest ASPH lenses, but I wouldn't put out that kind of money anyway so I don't care. I did have a current type 90 Elmarit-M and replaced it with a pre-APO Summicron. To get the f/2. At other apertures they were equal so I sold the slower lens. Kept my type-1 90 Tele-Elmarit because it takes 39mm filters. Maybe it has better contrast wide open and less flare than the current Elmarit-M, but I almost never shoot it wide open and I always use the hood. I got all my R lenses very cheaply, they're built great. Optically they may have very slight differences from my Pentax SMC Takumar screwmounts in color rendition (the Pentaxes are more natural, the Leicas are colder), but in sharpness (even wide open)the Takumars are as good or better, and they beat the Leica R lenses soundly in flare control. Still, I can't focus my Spotmatics reliably anymore because my eyesight has changed, and the R8 has a dioptric adjustment. Things like that make more difference to me than MTFs.

[travis1]

The turning point for me was when I bought the nikon 28/2.8 and sold the 35asph f/2. The idea about sharpness suddenly got blurry/vague ever since.