Summicrons -- Why the Three Dimensional Quality?

[peter_hughes1]

<center>

<img src="http://www.ravenvision.com/images/liana21.jpg"><p><i>Liana [#21]</i><p></center>

I've been shooting portraits with the 90mm and 50mm Summicrons for the better part of a year now, and I find that they have a "three dimensional" quality that is unique among all lenses I have tried. I used to shoot Canon primes, but the 85mm f/1.8 USM was "flat" by comparison. Understand that I do not mean contrast here, but the subtle rendering of the roundness of the human face. I recently bought into a Nikon F100 with 5 or 6 primes and, again, I find that although I get very good results with the Nikkors, they are similar to the Canon lenses in regard to "roundness."<p>Would anyone like to speculate as to why this is?

[tim_franklin]

Its not just the 'crons that have this wonderful quality. When I

bought my first Leica I had the old 35mm/1.4 Summilux, and was

delighted by the 3-dimensional quality I got from it compared to

the Nikon 35/1.4 I'd used previously.

 

<p>

 

I later sold that lens to get the ASPH model, and although the

new lens is wonderful, it isn't quite the same to my mind and I'm

now on the lookout for a nice example of the old lens again.

 

<p>

 

As to why, you'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable than

me in lens design. I think Leica historically left in some minor

abberations which may contribute to the effect. But don't qquote

me on that!!

[doug herr]

My guess - I emphasize GUESS - is that the 3D effect is related to

what I've perceived as better flare control. Better flare control

results in richer colors, better shadow and highlight detail, and

smoother tonal gradation.<P>

This last item, smoother tonal gradation, along with "good" bokeh,

probably contributes to the three-dimensional quality. BTW I've

noticed this with the 400mm f/6.8 Telyt as well.

[david_kelly1]

In one of his essays Erwin Puts offers the opinion that japanese lens

designers over-emphasize contrast, with the implication that by doing

this they are making their lenses seem sharper than they really are.

At first I thought, "this is the usual Puts pseudo-science;" but in

this case I think he's right. My 105 Nikkor AIS, whose design dates

to the eairly 1950's, gives just this 3-D quality. My new 85 AF

Nikkor, which is much sharper and contrastier, does not. And the

results I've seem from the ultra sharp and contrasty Leica ASPH lenses

suggests they don't have it either..........

[jason]

FWIW its not flare control.My Super Takumars are totally flare

proof,but FLAT!My 50mm Collapsible summicron is flare danger yet has

the 3D look.Go figger it out....seems the newest lenses do'nt have it

or do they?

[james_.1]

My new 35 lux definitely renders a 3D quality that just pops out of

the print or slide. Love it!

[stb]

I beg to differ regarding the new lenses. I have not yet used my 21

asph enough to judge, but I use the Summicron 28 with delight and it

definitely has that livestage reproduction like the 50. To my eyes,

anyway. Might be biased, though :)

[chi_huang]

I was shocked by looking thru a loupe at a Hasselblas slide a few

years ago. Using one eye only, the image *pop out* like real. Later

on, I took notice whenever I got such visual impact. My non-

scientific conclusion so far is that by combining two effects you

will have such visual perception: (1) The subject must be sharp and

color must be vibrant (2) pleasant bokeh in the background.

 

<p>

 

The amount of bokeh needs to be just right. Using long lens with

complete blury background often will lose it. Using 50mm lens with

slightly larger aperature seems to be the key. I seldom get such

feeling on a one hour lab print, more on the slide film (Velvia).

 

<p>

 

That's my feeling so far as to why this happen. I look forwards to

other's experience.

 

<p>

 

Chi

[glenn_travis]

I'm going to speculate that it's the quality of the glass. I would be

willing to bet that the glass used in Leica lenses probably cost as

much as your typical Japanese lens. After all, your not just paying

for assembly. And no, I don't think it's because Leica designs in

aberations, I think this is just nonsense.

[glenn_travis]

P.S. Very nice shot, and yes, I can see exactly what you're talking

about.

[erik4]

Yeah, there is a word for it: plasticity.

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

That is something unique in 35mm photography, I don't understand it

tecnicaly, but agree with Tim about the use of aberrations as

roundess enfasis, this is of my pictures the one that shows it

better, made with a 50/2 D.R. at middle apertures (5.6).

 

<p>

 

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?

photo_id=374730&size=md">

[sparkie]

Yes, I swear by the older lenses. Maybe its because of the thinner

coatings that let more 'three-dimensional' light in, or are just better

glass. I don't know, I'm not a lens designer, but I love the images

they produce. Especially my 50 DR, I am impressed by its imaging. And

this from a 40 year old lens!!! My newest version 35 'lux ASPH was

expensively disappointing and got rid of it.

 

<p>

 

Old is better. Simple is Best. AGAIN

[david_kelly1]

Chi: the example portrait ( which is stunning!)is very 3-D yet there

is no color and no background bokeh, so that can't be

it..............

[james_.1]

dagnabbit der aint nuttin like da old lenses lemme tell ya! take it

from this old timer ya green horns *grin*

[feli_di_giorgio]

Same here. I have the 4th generation 35mm Summicon-M and the three

dimensional effect of this lens is amazing. And it's not just me who

has noticed this. A while ago, a friend of mine was looking at a BW

shot I had taken of a black cat sitting against a wooden fence. The

cat looks like you could reach out and pet it. It's amazing.

 

<p>

 

 

feli

[tim_franklin]

>I have the 4th generation 35mm Summicon-M and the three

dimensional effect of this lens is amazing.

 

<p>

 

Wahoo!! I just bought this old stager last week. The guy in the

shop described it as the "bokeh king" so what could I do!

[jackflesher]

Like most of the other posts above, I don't know why for sure either,

but IMO it is due to the incredible tonal-range that the Leica lenses

offer. Now weather or not that is because contrast is lower, and

resolution is higher, I don't know. And heck, all that really matters

is that the difference <b>is</b> there! And ain't it sweet!

 

<p>

 

:-),

[kristian dowling]

3D quality??? that is just something made up my leica-maniacs

to make themselves feel superior. What they are referring to

when they talk about a special Leica look/glow and 3D is "better

sharpness". That's all it is. Once you pass the 85mm focal

length, everything seems flatter due to the lack of depth of field.

 

<p>

 

My Leica pics have better 3D effect now becasue my 35 Lux Asph

is much sharper than anything I've ever used in the past. If you

want the best portrait lens outside Leica and Zeiss, it is the

Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D lens. Forget the MF version which I

owned, which was not even close. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L

lens is a ripper too.

 

<p>

 

I recently bought a Leica 90 Apo which is surely better than any

other lens i've ever used. It is better due to better sharpness and

bo-ke. Roundness? I don't quite understand that one. But I

challenge anyone to come up with a sharper lens!

[msitaraman]

For a while in between I resolved not to give in to this

Leica 'roundness' mysticism, but while viewing my latest batch of

slides, all portraits from my 50/2, the thought idly crossed my mind

that the pictures are very three-dimensional. Yup, the effect is

there, unmistakeably. Many of my Nikkor pictures are the as nice or

better as images, but that funny little effect is quite absent. Dunno

what it is, its all quite irrational and unmeasurable, I suspect.

[iván]

Chi: just to document the opposite to what you say (nothing personal,

of course; I'm just trying to help make things clear): <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

photo_id=607246&size=lg">this photo</a> is a B&W and has no vibrant

colours, it is not sharp by any standard and the bokeh is at front

insted of at the rear. But still I think the 3D effect is present:

look at the glases, please; specially the one at right. BUT the lens

actually was a 50mm Cron and apperture was f4, very much as per your

guidelines. David points to the same facts, of course, and Peter's

photo is a better example, by far, of course.

 

<p>

 

And Kristian: this 50 years old 50mm Cron may have been sharp when

just born, of course, but not when hand held and specially not now

after so many cleaning marks on its front element. Though I have no

answer for Peter's question, I don't think the answer is that simple

either.

 

<p>

 

Great photo, Roberto ! ! What is the whiter area on the left lower

corner? something on the foreground? light leak . . .?

 

<p>

 

Regards, friends !

 

<p>

 

-Iván

[roberto_watson_garc_a]

Iván, it is a table cloth from anothe table.

[iván]

"Lo sospeché desde un principio . . . ! !"

 

<p>

 

Thanks, Roberto

 

<p>

 

-Iván

[andy_piper2]

GOOD question!

 

<p>

 

Looking at the posted pictures as examples (as well as having seem this

in my own images) I would throw out the following possibilities as

contributing to the 3D look:

 

<p>

 

1. Edge definition - which is not quite the same thing as sharpness but

may be closer to micro-contrast. As in the table legs in Roberto's

shot. They 'pop' against the pavement in the background.

 

<p>

 

2. The transitional bokeh - as in Peter's portraits - the stuff that is

just going out of focus retains its light/dark contrast while blurring

- sort of a 'soft' version of 1).

 

<p>

 

3. Overall tonal control - as mentioned, some other manufacturers pump

up over-all contrast (including recent Zeiss - so this is not Japan vs.

Germany) through gobs of coating and other ideas to improve apparent

sharpness - ever printed a slightly fuzzy picture on grade 4 paper to

make it look 'sharper'? Leica, by comparison, has the real thing - edge

definition - so they can keep the macro-contrast smoother and gentler.

 

<p>

 

4. Mix of aberrations - Erwin has a great essay somewhere on his site

about (I think) depth of field - but the title may be something else.

In it he makes the point that all light hitting the film travels in

cones. When the tip of the cone hits the film, the image is focused;

when some other part of the cone hits the film the image is out of

focus - and the SHAPE (cross-section) of that cone is determined by the

residual aberrations (spherical, coma, etc.) the lens designer left in

in order to correct something else. Leica designers - and esp. the

sainted Walter Mandler, who designed all the pre-APO 'crons - just seem

to pick a different palette of aberrations to take out or leave in.

 

<p>

 

5) Finally - sharpness wide open - at least near the center of the

frame. When we can shoot wide open without losing sharpness or much

contrast, the image looks more like what our eyes see naturally - a

sharp center of interest with most everything else fading away. It

isn't the whole story - since I see the 3D effect even in 21 shots

where there is not much focus fall-off - but it contributes to the

'look'.

[andy_piper2]

OK - here are three more examples

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/368912&size=lg">

Trio with mouse</a>

 

<p>

 

35 Summicron at f/2 - tonal range in faces, plus the in/out of focus

effect, plus edge definition even wide open, all contribute to any 3D

effect visible.

 

<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/374107">

Bridesmaids</a>

 

<p>

 

21 Elmarit - here the primary contributors are edge definition (pearl

necklace, e.g.) and tonal range, especially in the skirts, blouses and

skin. Everything's sharp, so focus/aberration/bokeh are non-issues. But

even the variety of trees in the background seem to reach forward.

 

<p>

 

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/607596&size=lg">

Chinese New Year</a>

 

<p>

 

35 Summicron. The glowing jewelry in Peter's portrait reminded me of

the dragon's decorations in this new shot, which have the same

pearlescent quality. Again, I see tonal rendition, edge definition, and

a central focused area surrounded by gently increasing blur as

contributing to the 'look', if any.

 

<p>

 

In this shot there is a very 'liquid' quality to the OOF crowd in the

background - which I attribute to tonal control plus those 'cones' of

aberrations spraying across the film - from the "king of bokeh".