jean_marie_dederen

<p>I do enjoy reading the compendium (you sent me a copy, thanks again) and other texts like his 'M lenses'. I do cherish the occasional moment though when he drops his objectivism and adds his personal view, usually accompanied by some apology or another!<br> The mamiya 6 is a beautiful tool, never had the privelege of using one; the 690III on the other hand dwarfs my hands; reminds me of the old Pentax67. I moved to 35mm (or rather returned to it) after schlepping around the 500C and its tripod in the veldt for 18 months. The prints are agreeably superior in quality of detail. But I have come to realize that detail and realism is not what i look for in a landscape print. Having said that I must add that in wider and 'deeper/further' compositions I do appreciate sharpness.<br> I do get frustrated when the light is just not settling down and i need to wait for the (in this part of the world) rather short time span of soft, late light. Veiling glare and harsh light is always ready here to spoil both resolution and contrast (hence this thread). Once last question, concerning one of the interesting insights Puts has slipped in one of his writings. He cautions the reader that older, low resolution glass will do good in high contrast resolutions, in the same way as modern, contrasty designs will solve ones frustrations in low contrast situations.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Oh. Looked at the coating(s) of the 35/2 again (under a tubelight on the ceiling). Appears that the different colours could be attributed to the different glass types? The amber could be explained by the two lanthanum elements.</p>

<p>Thanks Arthur - I am also impressed by the 21/2.8 elmarit (I suppose you refer to the pre-aspherical), nice balance between highlights and shadows. Not sure if i can handle the asph. lenses; how heavy is the 35 summicron asph's contrast in comparison to the the pre-asph (I have the v1, which is the least contrasty of the lot)? The contrast of asph. lenses is often qualified as harsh. i am thinking of landscape once more and hough I can see some artistic potential in strongly contrasting elements in a composition, I hate to lose all detail in the shadowy sections of the picture. Also the modern lenses are so expensive i could not really afford to get stuck with an unused lens in the cupboard... i tried the 28 asph 2.8 once and was disappointed both with the results and the build quality of the lens, I found the feel of focusing a bit 'wobbly'. Admittedly it is one of the 'cheaper' lenses.</p>

<p>and Arthur - forgot: your elmar m has amber and blue coating, yet it is said to have single coating; how does that work? I thought more colours meant multi coating?</p>

<p>Hi Arthur - elmar m is a precious retro lens. Now that Leica has bought up the Westlicht auction house we might perhaps expect some more golden oldies being revived?<br> You have extensive landscape experience. What is your best leica lens to take on veiling glare? And what is the difference with flare anyway, physically?</p>

<p>James - But of course that isn't really surprising. The Elmar 5cm used by Wolff is a simple Tessar design and even with uncoated glass, internal reflections must have been minimal.<br> It bears, therefore, little relevance to the behaviour and the corrections of the later, more complex, lens designs at Leitz Wetzlar.</p>

<p>James - Yes i agree; some truly amazing compositions against the sun, also in his other books, using uncoated glass; pity we haven't got more detail about the particular equipment and circumstances of his photographs... </p>

<p>Edward - Read something similar about the first summilux 35, notoriously flare prone. When the owner tried it on his digital camera the flaring only got worse. He ended up experimenting with differnt shapes of hoods and found that the rather expensive and hard to come by rectangular summicron 50 hood improved matters visibly.</p>

<p>Never realized what a noctilux could do until I borrowed one: it seems to have a will of its own, forcing light (too much or too little) into creating a useful negative!<br> Checked out Wolff's pictures again; many of his shots crop out the part where veiling glare washes out the contrast!</p><div></div>

<p>Robin - 'Goede wijn behoeft geen krans' goes the Dutch saying: Good wine needs no praise.<br> Zeiss pioneered lens coating before WWII. During the war these efforts were promoted by the military. A year after Pentax introduced its multicoating (1971 or 1972?) Zeiss promoted theirs: not sure if they introduced it or simply made an existing technology official. Pentax might have been very well the first to apply MC commercially. Looking at my leica glass it seems that leitz waited another decade or so...not clear from the literature I have.</p>

<p>Edward - Thanks. Is that the last pre-asph. version of the summicron? I borrowed one (never thought 50mm would do me much good in landscape). The negs look promising, but I must admit I normally reserve judgement until the print is made (I find 'reading' the negative an unpredictable business).<br> Most Nikon lenses flare, zooms seem to flare more easily, longer barrel and more glass? My 25-50 zoom however does not bother about excessive light entering its massive front element...no idea why; it is an early zoom and the coatings look just like all the others. The cheap 20/3.5 and 28/2.8 are just amazing. The 28/2, not so cheap!, is very resistant too. The 21/4, one of the earliest designs, with poor coating beats them all. <br> I really doubt if design has anything to do with it. Looks like more often than not some glass flares exceptionally little 'by coincident', as a side effect rather than being deliberately 'corrected for'...</p> <p> </p>

<p>Robin - SA really stands out amongst its contemporaries in terms of veiling glare control. A Swiss photographer whose name escapes me made extensively use of it in producing a beautiful large panoramic book on Antarctica in the 1950's or early sixties. Like Wolfe he controlled excessive light (skies and reflections on snow and ice) but at least he had the benefit of a good lens. I am still puzzled that the japanese photo industry took the lead in multi coating (Asahi in 1971, followed soon by Nikkor Ai lenses) when the germans had pioneered lens coating during and immediately after the war.</p>

<p>James - Wolfe's beach photography is stunning, and i am amazed by the quality of his work. He did master the flare challenge. The British landscape photographer James Ravilious at one stage used only early uncoated glass, including Leica. He built all sorts of hoods, some the size of a box in which the camera bodies fitted, in order to combat excessive light from washing out tonal values or reducing contrast.</p>

<p>james - yes i mustn't be too critical of the Puts reviews. I have gained a lot about lens technology from his writings (not that I know an awful lot). Which is why I brought up this topic in the first place. I am just curious about the cause, effect and remedy of <strong>veiling glare</strong>. Flare (as in blobs, lines, ghosts etc.) isn't really a serious problem with leica glass. Does that mean that the two are not related?</p>

<p>Bill - the funny thing is that lenses that are terrible with veiling glare, like the elmarit 90/2.8, benefit next to nothing from their hood (and the elmarit has a long extended one). On the other hand, flare resistant glass like the SA21/4 or the newish elmarit 28/2.8 (last pre-asph. version, in my experience, do not benefit from their hoods either.</p>

<p>Robin - I also have had no issues with veiling glare om the elmarit M 90. Strangely enough the super angulons which are as old as the summarons perform very well in this respect. I have the little SA21/4 on a leica III body and it is one of my most favourite lenses. But these are essentially Schneider designs. Not sure who specified the coatings. Wide angles I believe are generally more resistant? <br> The quality of our subtropical light is probably different as well? Find it interesting that Puts in his discussions of leica gear generally says little about flare. Bokeh is left out all together; he finds it seemingly to subjective to his scientific mind.</p> <p> </p>

<p>James - Point taken. Unfortunately the summaron sold until the <strong>mid seventies</strong> at the time when the nikkor 28/2 which I mentioned earlier on was readily available. The design may be from the late 1950's but by 1974, nothing had be done to improve its performance. The elmarit 90's replacement the tele-elmarit performs visibly better with veiling glare, but the thin elmarit 90 that followed (and was available in the 1990's!) is known to be even more susceptible to flare than its predecessors!!<br> As I said, I am quite impressed with lenses such as the pre-asph. elmarit M 28 and M90, but wonder why it took so long for Leica to correct their 90 optics? How is flare corrected anyway?</p>

<p>I would be more worried about the condition of the curtains and that Summar lens which is hard to find in unscratched and unhazed condition.</p>

<p>Edward: yes reduction in contrast is what I meant. With landscape background details fade away and the outer details of trees and foliage loose definition. Veiling glare is probably a better term; but isn't that a form of flare?<br> My nikon primes definitely handle the backlighting of the sky better. The elmarit 90 is the worst; and the hood doesn't do much to improve on it. The 1980's and 1990's designs are definitely better (elmarit M 21, 90, 28), which made me think their coating has caught up with Nikon's earlier multi-coating. But even with the contemporary designs the ZM lenses are said to flare less than Leicas; but I have no experience to substantiate that.</p>

<p>Robin - depends on what you photograph I suppose; outdoors with skies included in the composition, the elmarit 90/2.8 is probably my worst; but the summarons suffer a lot of degrading image too. They only become useful when the sky is partially blocked out or with late light. </p>

<p>Leica lenses have been corrected for a lot of issues, but somehow flare-resistance does not seem to rank high in their design. The only lens that somehow stands out in this respect is my 35/2R, and even then it compares marginally with some of my nikon glass: the 28/2 ais does very well and the 20/4 ais and 20/3.5 ais (ironically bottom of the 20 mm lenses) are just amazing, even when shooting landscape directly into the sun. Maybe nikon has different/better types of coating?</p>

<p>black and green: dual purpose camouflage, can be used at night, but preferably with blackened flashbulbs; looks like they forgot to paint the lensfront</p>

<p>FRED This is the contarex version (on the pic).<br> ARTHUR In ten years from now you can probably barter your house for a 50mm lens...!</p>

<p>Thanks JDM; good point; the east certainly made their optics available at a popular price; back in the seventies many of us ran about Europe with LOMO binoculars and PRACTIKA cameras (and dreamed about owning leitz wetzlar binoculars and zeiss ikon cameras!).<br> Jeff: I was under the impression that this was the Zeiss section of the Leica and rangefinders forum?</p>

<p>I read somewhere that only a few dozen mirotars were produced? </p>