bertino

<p>Hello all!<br>

I've got a similar problem though it seems to fit the symptoms described in point 5 of Gus Lazzari's post. I've looked at all the electronics and fixed one disconnected wire but the problem remains. I can't figure out were the problem is. Anyone got any ideas?<br>

Thanks for helping!<br>

B. Araújo</p>

<p>

<p>Thanks to all of you!<br>

I think maybe we can make a list on the Leica qualities and then see if you agree, want to add or change something.</p>

<p>Leica lenses qualities:</p>

<p>1. Since the '60s have been very good at rendering color<br>

2. Ability to "see" more tonal and color variation than do Canon lenses<br>

3. Bokeh performance<br>

4. Under-correction for spherical aberration (which makes for good bokeh?)<br>

5. Leica prints have more dynamic range according to grayscale readings taken with a Kodak densitometer</p>

<p>About the microcontrast thing, could someone explain better how it works, what causes it? Also about the 3D thing, no-one seems to know quite well what makes this... maybe it's just "pixy dust" like Hal B said. ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks again and keep telling us what you think!</p>

<p>Bertino Araújo</p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps if you could refer us to an example of what you mean, we could give better answers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was thinking of some sentences of lens reviews I've been reading: "Sometimes when Leica colors and Leica bokeh is preferred I use this lens" or "Bokeh is very <em>Leica-like</em>, quite smooth and natural" or even "Colors are very good as generally with Leicas, if you prefer Leica colors".<br>

http://vahonen.com/photo/equipment/lenses/Leica90F2.8/<br>

I also read something like this here: "Leica, which is known for developing lenses with probably the most accurate color rendition, did not disappoint here - colors were vivid and images were literally breathing with life."<br>

http://slrlensreview.com/web/leica-slr-lenses-133/standard-slr-lenses-139/380-leica-summicron-r-50mm-e55-f2-lens-review.html<br>

Its very interesting to see your opinions. I like to know the facts beyond the myths.<br>

Thanks everyone for your answers!</p>

<p>Bertino</p>

<p>I want to find out what are the characteristics that make for the famous Leica look.<br>

I hear people saying "Leica has the best colors" or "this lens gives you Leica colors if you prefer them"... or "the wonderful Leica bokeh". Another thing I don't quite understand is the 3D look thing. Some Leica lenses are said to have it but not all of them. The 3D look champ seems to be Carl Zeiss....<br>

Anyway, just tell me what are the key rendering qualities of Leica.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help!</p>

<p>Bertino Araújo</p>

<p>Can anyone point me to a list of Zeiss serial numbers?<br>

P.S.: For Contax versions actually. I found a few lists but they end about 1975 and don't have the serials for the C/Y mount lenses that I'm looking for.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>I'm shure if I go for Zeiss I will miss lots of things from my Leica, namely the excellent finish and build quality. I also love the way it renders subjects under subtle lighting: great colour depth and gradation! Sharpness is good too. It was a pity I didn't bought the second version when I bought this one: at the time I read someone on a forum saying he preferred the first version because the bokeh was better. And I love it. The thing is I shoot a lot of landscape and for that it doesn't seem to be the best tool because of the mentioned low contrast (which I only find low when under strong light).<br /> So the reason I'm thinking about selling my Elmarit and going to the Sonnar is because I love what I've seen on the net so far (yes, I know, one shouldn't judge a lens by what it looks on an Internet page but what I'm interested the most is the overall feel, contrast and colours of it, not the exact lp/mm) and also because being cheaper maybe with the extra money I could save to another prime for my system, this time a standard lens. I'm thinking 28mm or 35mm (35mm and 50mm equivalent on APS-C). I'm looking for a Leica and Zeiss thing here too: Elmarit 35, Summicron 35, Distagon 28 f2.8 and Distagon 35. I don't have a 28mm option for Leica because I don't know if any of them could be bought relatively cheap being as good as the others. For what I've seen so far it seems the Distagon 28 is great and the Distagon 35 not as much but also good. As for Leica the Summicron seems to be the better one.<br /> Any opinion on these would be great!<br /> Thanks for your advice!</p>

<p>Bertino</p>

<p>Hi Robin.<br /> I'm sorry if I made you think I didn't like your opinion, on the contrary, it made me figure out what I want. And I appreciate your help a lot!<br>

Of course I didn't expected the unprocessed version to be as good as I wanted, I just wanted it to have more room for editing. And I was not disappointed with the lens except those few cases outdoors with strong light.<br /> I'm thinking that maybe the lens for me would be a Zeiss because of its high contrast and the famous 3D look. As I said before I'm leaning towards the Contax Sonnar 85mm f2.8 for a substitute for my Elmarit. It would be interesting to know your opinion on this one. Maybe I will start a thread on a comparison between both as I cant find one on the net.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for the help!</p>

<p>Bertino</p>

<p>Hi! Thanks for the feedback!<br>

I shoot RAW and the image I posted is more or less the best I could do with Lightroom 3 Beta (which I think is the best RAW converter in terms of IQ for now). I agree with Robin about the color balance thing, though it is much cooler than the Nikon so the camera tries to compensate making the AWB warmer I guess. In the end I think it comes down to contrast: I read that the Elmarit was a high contrast design but probably that would be compared to the standard back in the 60s. I must disagree with Robin about low contrast being an advantage because I find the contrast added artificially to look... well... artificial.<br>

Also today I found a site were a guy compares his Elmarit-R 90 second version to a modern Zeiss Macro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF and he finds the latter to be usually better.<br>

<a href="http://www.vahonen.com/photo/articles/short_tele_lenses/">http://www.vahonen.com/photo/articles/short_tele_lenses/</a><br>

On his site he has quite a lot of photos with this and other Zeiss lenses that amaze me with the 3D feel. I would like to know your opinion about the Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 MM Contax or the Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 MM Contax which are the only Zeiss short teles I could buy used and mount on my Nikon. How woud these compare to the Elmarits? And something were your answers weren't clear: does the second version Elmart has higher contrast and better colors than the first one?<br>

Thanks a lot for your help!</p>

<p>Bertino Araújo</p>

<p>P.S. By the way, here goes the unprocessed version of the photo I posted before. The scenery looked bright and vivid, the light was sharp and the colors saturated. And the image I got was this:</p><div></div>

<p>Hi!<br>

<br />I have an Elmarit-R 90 first version which I use with a Nikon D5000 body via the Leitax mount. I like that lens quit a lot but I realize it is not perfect in many areas. Anyway what bothers me the most are the colors: comparing to my Nikon kit lens (yeah, I went from kit lens strait up to Leica!) the colors look much less saturated. Not in low light though, just with something like "not-to-dark" overcast up. For example, on a sunny day the images would look to brownish and dull, until I set the color balance manually to try to achieve a natural looking image. Than, after saturation boosted quite a bit, the shadows look too blue. Are those the colors one would expect from the first version Elmarit? I also though it could be because I'm using it in a digital body in which the reflective nature of the sensor's surface could create some flare inside the lens.<br />I was wondering if the second version Elmarit might perform better color wise.<br>

<br />Appreciate your help!</p><div></div>

<p>Hi!<br>

I have an Elmarit-R 90 first version which I use with a Nikon D5000 body via the Leitax mount. I like that lens quit a lot but I realize it is not perfect in many areas. Anyway what bothers me the most are the colors: comparing to my Nikon kit lens (yeah, I went from kit lens strait up to Leica!) the colors look much less saturated. Not in low light though, just with something like "not-to-dark" overcast up. For example, on a sunny day the images would look to brownish and dull, until I set the color balance manually to try to achieve a natural looking image. Than, after saturation boosted quite a bit, the shadows look too blue. Are those the colors one would expect from the first version Elmarit? I also though it could be because I'm using it in a digital body in which the reflective nature of the sensor's surface could create some flare inside the lens.<br>

I was wondering if the second version Elmarit might perform better color wise.<br>

Appreciate your help!</p><div></div>