Trying to create a set of M lenses that render similarly

[scott_turner2]

<p>Hey guys and gals, <br>

As the title suggests, I'm looking to create a consistent set of M-lenses that render equally across focal lengths. I've got little experience with different versions of lenses, and I just need a set that will give me the focal lengths I need and the size/aperture combo I want. Here's what I know so far:</p>

<p>If I go modern, I will most likely look at 28mm, 50mm, 90mm. If I go with the older designs, I will replace the 28mm with a 35mm, simply because the older 28s are huge. I'm also avoiding ASPH for high cost/high contrast. I would like lower contrast, even in the modern lenses.</p>

<p>I'll take a guess at what I think will be similar based on production year and my limited experience:</p>

<p>Modern: 28mm Elmarit V4, 50mm Summicron V4 or V5 (ergonomics are different not glass correct?), 90 Elmarit (last version with the built in hood before discontinued, E46)</p>

<p>Classic: 35mm Summicron V3, 50mm Summicron V3, 90 Tele-Elmarit (E39)</p>

<p>Would either of those sets be good fits for equal rendering? I ask because:<br>

-I currently have the 50 V3<br>

-I used to own a 90 Elmarit (E46)<br>

-I have the opportunity to pick up a brand new 50mm Cron for a REALLY good price and could sell the V3. </p>

<p>The 90 (E46) had a much more modern and contrasty look than my 50mm V3, both on film and digital. I wasn't a huge fan of the way it looked on my M240 but I loved the way it rendered on Portra (I don't own the M240 anymore, replaced with an M9). My only experience wider than a 50mm is the Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2, which was a beautiful lens, but had a significantly different look. Beautiful, but not my preference.</p>

<p>I realize this is subjective. I'm not looking for a decision between classic or modern. I need to make that decision myself, and it will come down to what I think about the new 50 cron I have an opportunity to buy and how it compares to the 90 I used to own, though it's not going to be apples to apples. I simply need an affirmation of what would be consistent in each set based on your experience, and anything that might fit better. Right now, I'm leaning classic.</p>

<p>I know that's a novel. Thanks for reading.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>It <em><strong>is</strong></em> subjective, and I think you're sailing close to Whitehead's "Misplaced Concreteness" here.</p>

<p>In years of yore, some of the photo magazines actually tried to test the "Nikon glass goes to the blue", "Canon glass to the orange" [or whatever the claims were]. As I recall, they never really could show any clear and consistent patterns. Some modern "applications" attempt to quantify differences among families of lenses, but fail to achieve <em>significance</em>, IMHO.</p>

<p>Admittedly, there's a lot of room between a 1930s Leitz lens and a 2010s M lens. On the other hand-- with all the variables of light, image processing, variation in single examples of any products, etc. --I doubt that any double blind test of ordinary subjects could find any pattern of consistency in human reactions to the lens itself as a variable.</p>

<p>If I were trying to do something this fine, I'd just go for lenses of a single design family (double-Gauss, Sonnar, etc.) <em>and</em> similar vintage, but different focal lengths.</p>

 

[scott_turner2]

<p>Fair enough. Maybe I am. But, the difference between my Zeiss Biogon 35mm, the 50 V3, and my 90 E46 was pretty noticeable to me on the M240. The 50 looked really different than the other two, and the 90mm had a different look than the Biogon. Less so on film, though the difference was there. Maybe I just stare at my photos too much...</p>

[Greg M]

Shooting raw and processing in one program, you pretty much create a bit of color consistency just doing that. I see little

color difference between my Leica 50mm Summicron from 1970, 35 Summicron from 1979, 90mm Summicron of the mid

80's, 135mm Tele Elmar of 1972 and current 21mm f4 CV Color-Skopar (replaced as of tomorrow by the 21mm f1.8 CV),

all shot with the M9 and files run through Adobe Camera raw using the Huelight profiles.

[Uhooru]

<p>Genrerally, and very generally, the last version Summicrons before the first ASPH version of the lens, seem to have a similar "look". So that is a 28, 35, 50 and 90 (I think).</p>

[scott_turner2]

<p>Greg- Thanks for the reply. It's not so much about color as it is contrast and rendering and how the image is "drawn" as they say, though I suppose color is part of that. Yes, the raw processing will create a consistent color combination (which for me is always the goal for a set of images), it's not really color. It's like the difference between two people's handwriting; they are writing the same words, but the writing looks different. Is it significant? To me it is if I can tell and it bothers me. I could tell a difference between my 3 lens' handwriting. Maybe it's because I knew those lenses really well, which I guess means I was paying attention. But if it bothers me, I want to try to get it consistent!<br>

Barry- Thanks for the info!</p>

[ray .]

If you're getting a brand new 50 Summicron, unless Leica has changed direction, pretty sure that lens is

going to be a bit more contrasty than the 'classic' Leica lenses. I agree with Barry-- In my experience

the 4th version (pre-asph) 35mm Summicron has a similar look to the 28 and 50 Summicrons of similar

age.

Those are all fantastic lenses, and not nearly as contrasty as the 21 Zeiss Biogon ZM I've used, but no doubt more

contrasty than the older Leica lenses.

 

Probably with any quality Leica lens, certain subjects in certain light on the M9 can render color that looks dead on true, but change the light and subject and sometimes no matter what you do with RAW and photoshop adjustments, there's something always a little off.

 

I can understand the desire to go with lower contrast lenses with digital- in that case you might want to

read up and may still need to experiment with the 'classic' group. Or go with those great modern Summicrons, and back off the contrast slider in RAW and upslide 'recovery' to find the look you want.

[ray .]

Btw, I had a 28 Elmarit 3rd version that I just loved on the M8 because the contrast was relatively tamed

and it made images that to me looked like b&w film. On the other hand it was not the most compact lens

and also flared easily shooting into the light.

 

The 4th version 28 Elmarit seems to be highly prized, though I've never shot with one.

[scott_turner2]

<p>Ray- Great info. Thanks for your feedback! I may or may not get the new 50. We shall see. I really like the V3 I have, and find that I can get great B&W images out of it on the M9. Sharp and classic looking. Really does well in contrasty light, but does tend to flare a little if you get a bright source in the frame. I like the idea of low contrast lenses because you can always boost it in post and they are more workable I feel (like they would be in the darkroom I suppose), but I guess you are right; you can reduce it as well. RE 28 V4, it seems to go for almost as much used as a used ASPH. Must be a pretty good lens!</p>

 

[mukul_dube]

<p>Am I right in thinking that your aim is an exhibition, or a book, containing photos taken with your different lenses? I ask because when photographs are viewed individually, consistency is not a concern and cannot be. I shall say also that "rendering" must be very narrowly defined if it is to remain the same for different focal lengths.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>For what its worth, I always found my 35 mm f2 (version IV) and 90 mm Tele-Elmarit quite compatible in rendition and tonal range in shooting B&W film and providing acceptable if not state of the art definition in making 10 x 15 enlargements in the darkroom. But that is my experience of another era. I am not one to wax over "classic look" or "glow" or other qualifiers in the Leica mystique. I have more recently (M9 use) preferred to buy as much optical perfection as I can afford (within definite limits, as the aspherical 50 Summicron and 75 mm f2 are much beyond my budget).</p>

<p>This means very good contrast, microcontrast, high resolution and rendition of fine details across the frame. Older optics seldom yield all of those qualities together (probably due to aberrations, less good edge performance, flare and other problems). I would prefer to start with a more modern Leica optic and then if I wish control contrast, color and other qualities in Photoshop. In the Leica lenses for which I have seen measurements and which were made before about 1990-1995 the color of the lens was quite variable. Not a lot of difference, but significant. You might wish to find those measurements via google as they may impact on what you call rendering.</p>

<p>One can say that all the lenses designed by, say, Walter Mandler, in the period of about 1975 to 1990 must have the same high quality, but it is known that they are not all equal, and this can also apply to the prior and subsequent lens design periods. Having lenses from the same period and manufacturing site may not at all guarantee similarity. Each optic is a separate calculation and compromise of qualities and weaknesses.</p>

<p>Whether I use my 21 f2.8 or 35mm f2 aspherical lenses, my M8 or M9 B&W images have all the tonal quality I presently want and are subjectively as good or better than the tonality of my film day prints. I am a bit less enthralled with my 50mm f2.8 collapsible (more recent version) and the 1980s 135mm f4 Tele-Elmar, although I use them much less and may be too quick to downrate them. The Elmar design of the 50mm has been recognized for many years, whether Leica lens or other, as yielding B&W images of high tonal excellence, as long as the lens is stopped down one or two openings. I will continue to try to master it. </p>

<p>I think that if I was considering a 28mm lens, the aspherical very small f2.8 lens would be one I would want to test. But as you can see from my comments, there is probably more subjectivity in the lens user than in the optics themselves.</p>

[scott_turner2]

<p>Mukul- Yes, it is for a series of photos, and for creating a consistent look. I'm trying to create some consistency across my images in general, but yes, these will be used for a specific project. I was more just looking for experience from various folks as to which lenses had similar characteristics. I'm aware (from actual usage) that the older Leica lenses have a different character to them than the newer ones. I'm just looking to get some affirmation from people with more experience than I have to narrow it down a little.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>I really can't agree that the difference is imaginary or marginal – I did a lot of work in my youth with a Leica IIIf outfit consisting of a 28 Summaron, 35 Summaron, 50 Summicron (Mark I) and 90 Elmar, and this is my benchmark of what I want Leica RF pix to look like. I briefly owned a 50 Summicron (Mark IV) from new but sold it, since I loathed its for me excessively contrasty image quality - even a severe exposure increase and reduced development did not give me the b+w results I wanted. More recently I tried to assemble an outfit to give me the late 50s/early 60s look – this comprised a 50 mm 1.5 Jupiter 3, a Leitz f3.5 35 Summaron and an 85 Canon Serenar, which worked quite well. Leitz lenses of this period are hard to find - I did also assemble an extensive Kodak Retina IIIS/Reflex outfit, which gave me a set of excellently-matched single coated late 50s/early 60s lenses for an exceedingly small amount of money. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>David, perhaps you can think of it this way. The optics cannot create more definition or contrast than exists in the subject matter to begin with. Each lens only approaches the maximum definition, available contrast or accurate colour rendition but cannot attain it. My 1936 Elmar has a certain look and I guess I might be able to replicate that in another lens of that era. My former 50mm f2.8 (1960s) is different from my more recent reformulated version, but the latter offers a slightly higher quality of rendition if that is based upon the approximation to reality.</p>

<p>I don't disagree that lenses from different period have different character. However, it might take a comparison of 11 x 14 or larger quality high quality prints to denote the differences and perhaps once each had been "normalized" to the type of rendition preferred by the photographer. Of course, if one likes out of the camera unprocessed images one or other of those lenses might find favour.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_turner2]

<p>David and Arthur- Thanks for the feedback. I think I understand what you are saying Arthur, in that you can only reach maximum definition, or accurate definition. The only problem with that, is that the camera itself is unable to record all of the tones present that our eyes see, especially on digital. So, the reduced contrast can help in high contrast situations. However, it can also make it harder to shoot silhouettes lol. <br>

I think I've decided on the classic route, I like the way they look, and well, I can't afford the more expensive lenses anyhow. I think for what I'm shooting, they will do just fine. Thanks for the help!</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Scott, good luck in finding lenses having similar rendition. That is a good objective in itself and knowing what you like in terms of rendition is a lot more than many of us achieve. Apparently many digital cameras have a less extended tonal gamut than film (what I've heard but not verified) so having lower contrast may well be a good combination. Happy shooting! </p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Some think that Leica people are overly picky about lenses. LOL. The Cinema guys are the ones who are picky. THAT is why when you buy or rent a set of cinema lenses you know they're all matched as to contrast, sharpness and color. (I'm not sure if each lens has same number of diaphragm leaves but the cinematographers do "count" the leaves). Have a look at Leica's new "C" lenses. They are all matched. The prices will make you faint but that's half the fun of the cinema equipment. Good luck with your photography.</p>

[scott_turner2]

Arthur- thanks!

John- interesting. I suppose when you have a multi million dollar budget, the attention to detail does get quite fine! It's little

details that the average person doesn't notice, but all add to the "feel" that the cinematography is responsible for.

 

I suppose that the difference with modern SLR systems is that the lenses are all made by the same manufacturer within a

period of time that is much shorter, so the contrast differences are much less noticeable. That being said, even between

older and newer L glass from Canon, there are some differences. But, the rendering is still similar. That's probably why

Leica folks seem more picky-there are too many options from a much wider array of years!

 

As an update, I picked up a V3 cron 35mm. It's still a little more contrasty that my 50 from the same era, but the look is

pretty consistent. It looks fantastic on my M9! Only thing I didn't expect-the corners get pretty soft at f/2, which for portraits

is fine....not so much when you're trying to get more "editorial" image in low light (for me anyway). No matter. It's a

stunning lens, and one I'll be happy with for a long time :)

 

Cheers!