"Leica Glow" Myth or reality?

[icuneko]

I feel "glow" and "3D look" are somewhat different animals. Glow to me connotes smooth yet distinct tonality or hues both sharp and non-sharp in detail while 3D connotes visual pop or clearly delineated subjects' focus differentiation. Bokeh seems more related to the latter's effects and not the former. And sometimes glow seems to be described as a positive or pleasing type of benign glare. I've seen images from different lenses having all of these, and therefore conclude that Leica does not have a monopoly on any of them, though they do share them with other brands. But this is all words. I know it when I see it.

[gabrielma]

Sorry, lysdexia kicked in; the above was a "Summitar" not Summarit. Here's another one with the Summitar...<div></div>

[feli]

Nice shot Gariel. Really nice.

 

 

feli

[ilkka]

I sent once a picture taken with a CV lens to Leica factory in Solms and they believed it was made with one of their lenses.

[steve_chan5]

<p>Those are wonderful pictures, Gabriel!

<p><i>So my question is, are Leica lens formulations like the recipe for Coca Cola, some kind of closely guarded secret that makes them king of the ant heap?</i>

<p>What an awful analogy! Fizzy brown sugar water from Coca-Cola versus fizzy brown sugar water from Pepsi? They change from cane sugar to corn syrup, and crank out truckloads of syrup at factories all over the world. One has more carbonation than the other, and the other has more corn syrup - such a secret!

<p>Different lenses have different signatures, the question is whether there is some exclusive quality to the Leica signatures that nobody else's lenses possess. And, in this day and age of easy photoshop actions, can't be copied with a photoshop plugin: they have plugins to simulate Tri-X, Velvia - maybe a photoshop action that combines edge masking/sharpening with a slight color shift? The Summicron (2nd version) photoshop action, versus the Summitar (coated) action...

[stephen_w.]

I see it. That's good enough for me. I bought them cheap, my newest lens was made in '68. I tried all the newer ones, but sold them all. Sharpness to me is not the be all and end all. My current kit is a 21/3.4, 35/2 ver. 1, and 50/1.4 `58 'lux.

[Uhooru]

Really, they glow...no really they do...

 

Oh by the way this "topic" has been discussed ad nauseam in many other threads, why don't

you just do a search on glow and you'll get all the arguments. Or is this just another attempt

to stir the pot?

[claude_batmanghelidj]

No, it's not "another attempt to stir the pot," whatever that means. It is a legitimate question asked on a forum the function of which is to discuss precisely such things.

 

I asked the question because I would like to learn more. What are the optical parameters that give Leica lenses their look, and how and why do Nikon lenses, for example, give a different look?

 

Are lenses like wines, with different flavors? I find this topic quite interesting, and I am not a physicist, no expert on diffraction or refraction etc. but I am curious.

 

Perhaps I should educate myself on optics.

[canfred]

Only the ones taken with the Cron serial mumber's under one million.

Why you ask , radio active glass of cause. They glow really they do!

[jeremy_tok]

I'll let you in on a secret. There really is such a thing as the Leica glow -- the eyes of three generations of discerning photographers would not err.

 

But whence the glow? The design? The coating?

 

No and no.

 

It's the glass. The crown glass used in the second element of the 50 Summicron was made from sand quarried from Schleusigen, a small town on the banks of the river Werra nearby Jena. Due to the unique bouquet of impurities in the sand, the crown glass made from it has a unique chromatic dispersion curve not found in any other type. Schott buys its sand for glass catalogue number Kr153g from this quarry, and as most know, Leica has been a steady customer for this glass type for decades.

 

However, since the late 80's, Hoya of Japan has been offering a similar glass at half the price. Since Leica is continually under pressure to cut costs, especially for its bargain Summicron 50, it started using Hoya crown glass instead. Lenses from then on weren't what they used to be.

 

Which partially explains the glow attributed to earlier Leica glass, the DR Summicron comes to mind, which has not been replicated in modern lenses. It also explains why the topic of glow is so controversial: some swear they see it, some say it's superstition. It's simply because some Leica lenses glow while some don't.

 

However, there is a cure for non-glowing lenses. Bring it to Schleusingen, annoint it with water form the Werra, and bury the lens in a small hole in the ground for 15 years. Then fast for as long as the lens is in the ground. Only one lens per person per lifetime please.

 

Glow, schmolw.

 

(That was all a joke if you haven't noticed already.)

[vivek iyer]

"Doug Herr sold all of his Nikon lenses after seeing the results of photos shot with Leitz lenses."

 

Huh?

 

There was Doug Herr on the Nikon forum lavishing praises on the 300mm f/4.5 ED Nikkor (non IF). He specifically said that he would NEVER part with that gem.

 

Presumptuous thinking like this fuels myths like, Leica "glow".

One of the reasons why Leica is folding, I believe.

[brunom]

Vivek

 

You don't say 'when' Doug heaped praise on the Nikkor - maybe it was before he saw the results from Leica lenses, and then he changed his mind?, now there's an original thought!, as it seems, here, once you've said something, it's cast in stone and can never be changed, which of course is nonsense, as is the notion that you can't ask for up to date information etc about something that's been dicussed before, without being told 'all' you want to know is in the past files or Google! People do change their minds and opinions about things, and that's why the same subjects get raised time and again.

 

Bruno

[jason]

My lady friend recently was going thru a batch of prints I had done. She remarked that "these" were like 3-D! The lady is an expert in optics, not photography. Yes it was all the Leica shots. Labs that had/have real technicians can see it too. All the older lenses have it. The fact is the smooth transition of focus to out-of-focus.

The 50mmf1.4 Super Takumar has it! In a recent interview with Pentax, said if produced today the lens would cost to buy, as much as the 50mm Summicron-M..

In pro-work and for self I use Nikon-F and Pentax and occassionally canon. The lenses are equal but not same as far as "this" quality.

If you do not see it,the 3-D, you will be happy with any good lens.

[steve_levine]

If you guys were out taking pictures, you wouldn't have time to discuss this.

[paul_neuthaler]

50mm DR Summicron "glow"<div></div>

[jason_thomas1]

Bruno, regarding the 300mm Nikkor, it was within the month (this one).

[Allen Herbert]

Leica Glow" Myth or reality?

 

I am pretty damn certain it exists, as some kind of holy grail of lens making.

 

It's one of the mysteries of the many mysteries of the universe, Claude.

 

Not for us mere mortals to comprehend or understand. Sleep in peace tonight, Claude, and just think of it as one of the infinite pieces of the jigsaw of life.

 

You have been searching for answers all your life, Claude. ;answers have been seeking you .

[vivek iyer]

Bruno,

 

"Douglas Herr , may 12, 2005; 06:21 p.m.

"This is not an IF type"

 

Lex if I might offer some advice, DON'T EVER SELL THIS LENS. I talked my brother out of the one I now have (was our father's) but it took dropping my Leica 280 f/4 APO and sending it off the the fatherland to convince him I needed the 300 ED."

 

Read all about it in Lex Jenkins post (Nikon forum).

[brunom]

Jason

 

Thanks for the info. Doug obviously likes this lens, but without his input we don't know, for instance, whether or not he uses it for work in dangerous [for the lens] places and would rather lose that than his 280mm Lieca lens? I don't know the answer but there are so many possibilities that I wonder why this example was used to counter the argument that Leica lenses are exceptional, which in itself is just [many] personal preferences expressed.

 

I prefer to use Leica,and for me they are the best, but that's as far as it goes.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[brunom]

Vivek

 

It seems our posts crossed - thanks also, but it seems that Doug is extolling its virtues as a back-up, or have I misinterpreted it?

 

Many thanks anyway.

 

Regards

 

Bruno

[steve_mcallister]

>I am going to go out on a limb here, and name two people who also claim that Leica lenses have an edge:

 

Doug Herr sold all of his Nikon lenses after seeing the results of photos shot with Leitz lenses.

 

Talking with Sherry Krauter, she said that leica lenses give the subject a "3D" look. I have noticed this interesting effect as well. I have read, I think, that it is caused by Leica lenses ability to render greater tonality. <

 

Oh well then if them 2 famous photographers known the world over say so then everyone else is a butthead if they don't scrap their gear and buy Leicas.

 

 

>I've had at least two separate pro labs ask me if I shot Leica after looking at my negs. I told them yes, then asked them if it was obvious when someone was shooting Leica glass. Both said yes, they jump out.<

 

Who, were's my hipwaders, its gettin real deep in here.

[vivek iyer]

Bruno,

 

It is possible that Doug Herr uses that as a back up (onle he can tell us).

 

I just find it odd that some folks would think that Leica glass alone has some "special glow"(whatever that means in their imagination).

 

I love the 50mm/2 Summicron with my SL-2. I think this the best normal lens I have used sofar (among Minolta, Nikon and a few others).

 

Of course, if you have Leica glass and use it for its performance, all the more power to you!

 

Regards,

 

Vivek.

[doug herr]

Claude quoted me correctly, I sold all my Nikon lenses when I first started using Leica lenses, and Vivek is correct, my 300mm Nikkor ED is a backup for the 280 APO-Telyt. I have a few manual-focus Nikon lenses now, they were either gifts or inherited. The 300mm ED is an excellent lens and I'd much rather use the 280 APO.

[dennis_couvillion]

Steve, do you have much, or any personal experience looking at images shot with Leica glass and with other brand lenses?

 

While no one is suggesting that you should ditch all of your non-Leica lenses and replace them with Leica glass, the suggestion that you can't see a generally consistent difference in images taken with Leica glass is, to many of us who have used Leica glass and other brands as well for many years, like nothing more than the uninformed rantings of someone who just doesn't know better. Do you suspect that fifty years ago a few people secretly got together and decided to start a myth that Leica glass produces images with a distinctive look? Or, do you think perhaps that over many years experienced photographers swapped notes and discovered that they had independently concluded that Leica glass produces a distinctive look?

 

FWIW, the so-called Leica glow is subtle; the 3D effect, however, is quite noticeable. Ever shoot with a late model 50mm f2 Summicron-M? If you did you would know what we're talking about.

 

Dennis

[doug herr]

Sorry, it was Bruno who suggested my 300 ED is a backup.