leica old glass favourite (pre 1970)

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Surely not every brand of say 35mm focal lenght lens displays the same DOF scale?</em><br>

Why wouldn't this be the case? This puts things as well as I can (probably better):<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field</a><br>

'worse case scenario' or rather an average?<br>

This is proving difficult for you to grasp, isn't it? You're thinking of flare as localised light spots, and this kind of flare depends on the subject, its position in the picture and the lens design - it's most likely to occur with a light source within or JUST outside the picture area. BUT the figures I gave above are not either a worse case scenario or an average. They are a CONSTANT and depend ONLY on the number of lens elements and whether they are coated or not!</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>DAVID Does make perfect sense, just never really understood it correctly. Thanks for pointing that out. No wonder many photographers are reluctant to venture into old glass. Others probably just see it as just an extra challenge.<br>

Thanks for the dof reference. I'm still figuring that one out! When i look at Anthony's third summar picture, my first response was: 'how come would only that ship be in focus with an f stop of f8?' (does the summar even have f8? more probably f9?) The same picture taken with a nikkor 50/2 would at that aperture produce a much wider dof...I thought (but I dont have it nearby to check out the scale unfortunately).<br>

One last question, if I may, concerns the <strong>old 90/4 and 90/2.8</strong>. They sell relatively cheap and are plenty available. Both have a reputation for unusual flare, <strong>even the coated</strong> samples, and in spite of the <strong>front element</strong> being <strong>deeply recessed</strong>. The only explanation i have found so far is that the body of these lenses is rather long (has something to do with their design for visoflex, possibly) and that therefore light may bounce around inside the body more than what is the case with other lenses. Does that make any sense? </p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2790915">Jean-Marie Dederen</a> - I've just taken my Leica III and the SUMMAR out of its case and checked - it is F9 not F8 but I wrote f8 against the negative. It was taken in 2002 and I think I had all my marbles then ! p.s. I have just bought an adaptor so that I can use the SUMMAR on my M8. I'll post a picture when I recieve the adaptor.</p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p>This is my SUMMAR on my 1936 Leica III</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>Another oldie but dreamy 50mm uncoated lens, the 1933 (circa) 50mm nickel Elmar serving an M camera 75 years younger. </p><div></div>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>Jean-Marie,<br>

as far as I am concerned, nobody did make a reference to your yellow filter question...<br>

No, it does not cure flare, but as it adds contrast, it sort of compensates the low contrast situation introduced by flare prone lenses. And en passant you get a nicely darkened blue skys as a filter cuts the impact of complementary colors, and lightens up "yellowish" light greens, NYC cabs and skintones.</p>

<p>This thread could work like a "How to get into vintage Leica photography" tutorial anyway!<br>

Don't remember the last with over 100 posts, well then, Jean-Marie, you are really wakin' 'em up!</p>

<p>Best wishes, enjoy whatever gear you will finally decide for!</p>

<p> </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Thanks for pointing that out. No wonder many photographers are reluctant to venture into old glass.</em><br /> Many do though, and simply enjoy the results. The only thing you really need to do is accept that certain types of shots, such as backlight with the light source in the picture, are not going to work ... unless you are very crafty. If you have some spare moments, check out a British photographer called Frank Meadow Sutcliffe:<br /> <cite>www.<strong>sutcliffe</strong>-gallery.co.uk/</cite><br /> Try Gallery -> Whitby Harbor -> B42<br>

<br /> He took marine landscapes around the turn of the last century, often with backlight BUT always with the sun positioned behind a boat sail or a cloud - check out his work, it shows you what is possible with an uncoated lens and quite a lot of skill. Another type of shot that you can't do with uncoated lenses is the Richard Avedon type studio shot with a super clean white background (lit one stop brighter than the subject). This just bleeds into the subject. I worked at the V&A Museum in London for 2 years (1970 to 72). Just for fun and because it was lying around, I used an 8x10 Gandolfi camera with a Victorian Zeiss Protar lens, which was fine for almost everything except, as I say, white backgrounds!<br /> 90 Elmar - I have owned 2 examples, both postwar 4-element coated types. The front element was not recessed on these (earlier types taking 36mm push-on filters), I can't say flare was a problem, I used the lenses on a rangefinder camera and also used the lens heads mounted on a bellows. Performance seemed to be typical Tessar, moderate contrast, sharpness good in center at full aperture and at the edges closed down 2 to 3 stops. I certainly wouldn't bother with a prewar uncoated 90 mm Elmar (or 135 Hektor). Finally, the Summar has a minimum stop of f12.5 for design reasons.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>ARTHUR/ANTHONY Your prize cameras make me really want to go back home (Belgium). You don't know how lucky you are having beautiful gear and photobooks at reaonable prices available and delivered on your doorstep two days later! On this side of the equator you just hope that whatever you ordered for double the price (insurance, mailing, vat, import taxes) arrives in one piece (or arrives at all!) a few months after you ordered it.<br>

Anthony: If I didnt know better I would think that you doctored that summar on the photograph: looks like it came out of the factory yesterday! I just found another one of your summar pics on the net: a big rock lying somewhere on a beach 2000km from here. With the camera pointing down you avoided the sky but...aimed straight into the sand. Judging from the shadow it was midday. The summar (and you!) handled the reflection on the beach amazingly well. The overall detail and contrast is great, considering that you probably had to underexpose a bit. Looking forward to the m8 pics. If you'ld open a separate 'summar photography' post you would probably get a lot of participants.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>DAVID Just visited the <strong>Sutcliffe</strong> gallery. Must have been a real challenge to minimize the blur caused by movement in those marine shots. Exquisite sepia toned prints. I didn't realize until last year how much manipulation went into the creation of pictorial effects.<br>

I have ordered a copy of <strong>Ravilious</strong> book; also worked with non coated objectives (as a deliberate choice); the elmar 35/3.5 being one of them. I doubt that there will be much on his technical knowledge in these books (most black and white photography books are disappointing in that they are rather minmal in terms of text; and the text usually being written by somebody other than the photographer).</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>KNUT Thanks for the yellow filter advice. Seems like the light yellow (which could just as well be called 'hardly visible yellow'!) was used in the old days like we use UV filter today: more to protect the front element than anything else). I also found a nice <strong>yellow graduated</strong> clip on filter for the prewar objectives. Yellow filters are easy to find here, and reasonably priced (40 euros).<br>

I am looking for a usable summar with thread mount body. The cheapest locally are the '<strong>standard'</strong> type (known as D in the states?) It might take some time to get one. I am also looking at a leicaflex: much cheaper with an r lens attached to it than any of the older lenses on its own!? Hope the <strong>r lenses</strong> are as good as their ltm counterparts. </p>

[jason]

<p>The Leica Reflex with R series but not the 6.2 etc are plain lousy cameras. Based on Minolta of same period. The Minolta at that point not a stellar product! The messing with electronics where Leica got an "F" in report card! The lenses are good, some great, some so-so. It is not about sharpness, clarity or that special look! I am about reliability. I'm sure many using these R3,R4 have never had problems. I write of experiences as a pro-photographer. Photojournalism.<br>

The R series also have all sorts of cams.. so getting a body and a lens to match..Hullo!<br>

I love my M system. Have very high regard for the Barnack system. Totally dis-regard the CL and CLE.<br>

Those if working OK, if problems, toss.<br>

Again you can achieve this romantic look with the latest cameras.. think!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Jean-Marie You might also look for later Barnack Leicas than the D. According to some sites (for example, if you Google antiquecameras), the prices of later models (1940s, 1950s, excluding the expensive IIIg) are not much more and sometimes equivalent to the 1930s camera bodies. </p>

<p>My IIIf/IIIc converted Leica body cost me about $450 at a trade show in the mid 2000s, but I probably paid more than I should have, had I looked around a bit more. The big auction site has European branches (France, England) that might be useful. These older cameras usually need a cleaning, lubrification and adjustment to get the best from them. I have not done that yet but probably should, and will soon do a film test to see how much better I might expect from the shutter speeds and RF operation after a CLA. I quite like the rendition of the old Elmar 50mm on my M8. It is not sharp, like modern V-C or Leica M lenses, but the slight veiling and lower contrast suits some subjects. </p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>ARTHUR I just love the basic but uncomprpmising look of the Standard. They seem readliy available in the market, and they look clean (haven't seen much action in the field I suppose). Apart from that I wonder if my poor eyes will manage those miniature finders! An external finder seems more user friendly to me. The lack of focusing device is more demanding on your skills. Apart from that the Standard looks like the closest you can come to the original 35mm camera.<br>

As for the flex SL2 I was looking at earlier on this week, it is mainly the price that is appealing. Seemed like the cheapest way of getting into leica (although it beats the initial purpose of getting a rangefinder). </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Jean-Marie I agree about the small finder on the standard. I guess that my Elmar 50 was made for that series although I am using it on the IIIc/f and my more recent bodies. Perhaps another option, unless you want to be historically correct, is to use a 35mm lens on a standard with a separate 35mm VF, thereby allowing scale focus with the better DOF. There were of course separate shoe mounted uncoupled Leica rangefinders (one vertical, the other horizontal in aspect).</p>

<p>The Leicaflex SL2 has a reputation as a formidable SLR for its time, used by Ernest Hass and other professionals. Some of the Walter Mandler designed optics for it from Midland (50mm Summilux and 90mm f2.8) were better than equivalent M lenses of the time, and the 50mm Summicron was apparently as good as the later M version (IV), again a Mandler improved double Gauss design. I am going mainly on what I have read in those regards, but it is sure that the R optics and Leicaflexes can often be had at a bargain when compared to the M optics. The two cameras, the standard and the L'flex are of course of different eras and advancement, and quite different handling instruments.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>ARTHUR I just love the basic but uncomprpmising look of the Standard. They seem readliy available in the market, and they look clean (haven't seen much action in the field I suppose). Apart from that I wonder if my poor eyes will manage those miniature finders! An external finder seems more user friendly to me. The lack of focusing device is more demanding on your skills. Apart from that the Standard looks like the closest you can come to the original 35mm camera.</em><br>

If you want the "back to basics"approach, go for a Leica If - essentially the same as a Standard but 25 years younger and much easier to get serviced and obtain reliable operation. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p>... the cheapest way of getting into leica ...<br>

Just a couple of remarks. A few years ago I was attracted by the fact that it was possible to buy a "Leica" (R3) plus 50mm lens (Summicron or Summilux) for about £150 (particularly on German e-bay). I bought 3 of them - they were all cosmetically good and worked fine after having a tarnished commutator ring cleaned (made the meter inaccurate) and having the rear door light seal changed. I found the R3 was solid, reliable, relatively vibration-free, very heavy and unremarkable from the point of view of specification. I don't think it suffered from being a joint development with Minolta! <br>

I also bought an R8, which seems to need "chipped" lenses for all the functions to work - quite a nice camera, interest in it seems to have waned since I bought it, when I sell it I'm sure to lose about half what I paid. At the same time. there has been a big rise in demand for Leica R lenses to use with other bodies, so my investment in the R system just about broke even! In short, good glass and build, limited spec - I really wouldn't choose a Leica R over a Canon EOS.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>The flex i am looking at will be a bit more than 150 pounds, although it feels as if could easily weigh 150 pounds! Not very attractive either. Feels like a brick and looks like one. But I have just found three other reasons to buy it (in addition to being mint and cheap): 1. there is an adapter ring to fit the r lenses on the m system (useful should the brick pack up). 2. having an early r lens is probably the closest I will ever come to using 'modern' leica lenses (love the deep purple coating). Incidentally, amazing how small these objectives really are (I thought they would be bigger than on the barnacks). They dwarf away next to their nikkor counterparts and contemporaries. 3a. the viewfinder is simply brilliant (none of my nikons comes even close) and 3b. they are specs friendly, not sure why, but it feels as if my eye is closer to the image in the viewfinder than is the case with the nikon (totally unscientific description, admittedly, but that's the best i can describe it). </p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2790915">Jean-Marie Dederen</a> - May I add just a few comments. I used to use an R as my main camera for years - an R4S Mod 2. Beautifully built, solid as a brick but SMALL compared with other Rs. I could quite happily go out and use it now. A wonderful camera and a true Leica. Thoroughly recommend it.</p><div></div>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>ARTHUR those VF devices are rather pricy. And because I will use mainly wide angle lenses for landscape focusing I presume won t be much of an issue. I was disappointed when checking the prices of the <strong>external brightline viewfinders</strong> you mount on top of the Standard. They are almost as expensive as the camera! And you need one for each lens?</p>

<p>ANTHONY Good looker, but more pricy than the old sl2 flex i am looking at. Were you happy with the lr lenses? Ever tried to mount them on the m camears?<br>

Looking forward to your SUMMAR m8 shots. Looks like leica really hit it off with that camera. Ever leica thread is swarmed with m8 users. Wonderful that they allow old glass to be used on them (apart from the fact that it must have had an effect on the second hand pricing). You may find that your images will be visibly sharper on digital. </p>

[anthony_brookes5]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2790915">Jean-Marie Dederen</a> The R lenses I have are all excellent - 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, and 200mm. As to the SUMMAR when I used that s my everyday camear I did all my own processing and enlarging on firstly a VALOY with a VAROB but later with a V35 (a marvellous piece of engineering) Now of course one can 'sharpen' digitally so I will post my pics with the SUMMAR on the M8, untouched.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p><em>Anthony</em> Just looked up valoy and varob and v35, all new to me. V35 looks a lot more convincing than my delapidated superchromega! Autofocus is something I really miss; I really battled with my bad eyes trying to focus in the dark, until I decided to put some fine parallel scratches on a piece of unexposed film and use it as a focusing device.<br>

Looks like i may have found a 35/3.5 elmar in Johannesburg for a reasonable $300. Have to go and look at it; the owner says it is free of haze and scratches (free of coating as well!), but I guess the <strong>best test is to hold it up against a strong light?</strong> Objective is so small when you're used to nikkors.</p>

 

[dhbebb]

<p><em> those VF devices are rather pricy. And because I will use mainly wide angle lenses for landscape focusing I presume won t be much of an issue. I was disappointed when checking the prices of the <strong>external brightline viewfinders</strong> you mount on top of the Standard. They are almost as expensive as the camera! And you need one for each lens?</em><br /> Leica brightline viewfinders are good but very dear. Voigtlander ones are also good but cheaper. For the 35mm focal length there are quite usable Russian plastic VFs which are cheaper. There are also numerous multifocal VFs from Leitz, Russia, Tewe, Braun. Canon, Nikon etc. at reasonable prices.</p>

[jean_marie_dederen]

<p>DAVID Thanks. I'll just have to sacrifice on aesthetics. I can see why the oldest finders (small and 'trumpet' like) are so small: to match the miniature proportions of the camera. The 'plasmascreen', bigger finders really stick out like a sore thumb. But if they do the job, fine with me. The oldest multifinders (torpedo like shape) seem to have no glass?! Just a frame that can be adjusted to fit the lenstype.</p>