Hello to everyone

I have been taking B&W pictures for a while with a number of different cameras, including Nikon 35mm SLRs, H'blad MF, XPAN, and all the lenses you could think about. I came accross B&W images made w/ Leica M and I realized I was missing something. English is not my language and it is hard to explain, but there is something about these pictures, in the sharpness (but not really sharpness)or accutance (but not really accutance), or whatever you want to call it that made those pictures different. Good different. I am currently selling some equipment to buy a Leica M, because I loved the "rendering" on those pictures, and I have not been able to have the same detail quality with the other equipment I owe(d). Can someone try to explain to me what makes Leica B&W pictures different? I am not talking about the content of the pictures, or the fact that they were taken with a RF, and hence "within the action", I am talking about the rendering of small details (like a textured wall for instance). Is it the lenses? What with them? Is it the exposure? Is it the film used? Is it all of the above?

I am sure I appear confused and I certainly am. Thank you for any answer that might help me to find my bearings.

Marc

-- Marc Pilgrem (mpilgrem@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002

Answers

It's the lenses. That's why you spend the outrageous amount of money for a Leica ... The lenses are capable of superb imaging detail and tonal reproduction, beyond anyone else's. Why? Good engineering by people with a specific imaging goal in mind and a "no holds barred" approach to achieving it.

All the ballyhoo about the bodies, etc, comes down to a quality built, precision camera. Few others are building bodies to this level of quality but whether it's really needed or not is a moot point. It's the lenses that make the cameras special.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 12, 2002.

Indeed. The late Larry Bartlett (a superlative B&W printer here in the UK) always said he could spot a negative shot on a Leica due to the delicate shadow detail that was caught.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), March 12, 2002.

Marc, These pictures were likely to have been taken with vintage leica lenses. For B&W these are probably the very best. The look of these may be due to Lanthanum rare earth glasses used in some of these. Also could be attributed to flare. Modern lenses are not the best for B&W. Aspherics kill some of the character. What you are looking for is the classic leica lenses which are not made any more like the 50mm Dual range lens. Get one of these in clear condition. With no fogging, haze etc.. You will be amazed with this lens. Best regards,

-- summicron (summicron_@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

The late Larry Bartlett (a superlative B&W printer here in the UK) always said he could spot a negative shot on a Leica due to the delicate shadow detail that was caught.

I see the same thing in my Kodachromes. After the first roll of K64 with the 400 f/6.8 my Nikon equipment sat unused until I sold it.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), March 12, 2002.

since i have my leica the ration between b+w and color in my work is about 10:1 for b+w. with my old equipment it was about 1:1. one explanation for me is that i got really picky and commercial color processing is just not up to the standards i am able to produce with b+w. i should shoot more slides, or júst accept that i am now living in a b+w world.

-- stefan randlkofer (geesbert@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.

I don't want to enter a silly "old vs new lens" debate. My experience with Leica lenses dates back to 1969 when I got my first two Leicas (IIc and IIf) and my current kit is latest series M6TTL with current glass. They all do very well with B&W. The modern ASPH designs have a different character to them: they're higher resolution, more tonal separation, less coma. Some folks prefer the aesthetics of the older lens' limitations, but to say that the modern ones "dont do as well" is perhaps a little short- sighted ... They perform better or are simply different in imaging qualities.

For example: The Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH is one of the sweetest 35s ever made and produces absolutely beautiful B&W negatives. The last pre-ASPH is a more compact lens and also produces superb negatives, but it isn't as crisp at the edges/corners. Out of focus degradation is pretty close between them, the 35ASPH at middle apertures and distance is not quite as smooth, but wide open and stopped down it's equal.

The key is a trade off to which imaging character suits your needs best. I tend to shoot wide open most of the time, or stopped down at f/11. At which point the ASPH does at least as good a job as the pre-ASPH.

Godfrey

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), March 12, 2002.

I use two lenses only - a new 35mm Summircron Asph (in screwmount) and a 1960 Summarit. Most of my photography involves the nude and I find that for many of my images the old lens is far superior for the following reason. When doing fairly tight images (where the body takes up the majority of the frame), the 35 Asph is just too darned sharp. I work a lot on commission and so have to please my models as they are buying prints. They complain that with the 35 things just look 'too real', not pleasing, while the, how do I describe it (the aforementioned 'rendering' is perfect IMO) sharp, yet roundness of the old 50 is very pleasing, nearly painterly. Though for images where I am showing a sense of space and the figure is a smaller part of the frame the 35 is wonderful, I wouldn't part with the Summarit for any amount of money.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 12, 2002.

Marc:

I like Leica lenses. The 35 mm f/2 asph is a favorite. But if you can't get exceptional B & W images with the Zeiss lenses on Blad, you are really doing something different from me.

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), March 12, 2002.

Thank you for your answers; I look forward to having the camera in hands to see what I can do with it.

Art: I appreciate your comment and I am not judging the Hasselblad and the quality of the pictures produced. Some of the lenses (and for specific applications) have given me beautiful negatives that I would definitely qualify of exceptional. No argument there (especially given what that equipment cost me). I am just talking about some undefinable (to me at least) things that I have seen ONLY on pictures made with the Leica that I cannot reproduce with the H'blad. And I know it is not sharpness since my Zeiss lenses (and I am thinking, for example, about the 180 or the 120CFi for portraits)show every hair, any pore in a face, anything that could appear on a negative. I am repeating myself, but the "rendering" of a textured wall is what comes to my mind (I am thinking about pictures taken end of the day, side light for example); Leica seems to produce very pleasing images which I haven't been able to match with my equipment. But again, maybe it is a matter of taste and personal preference. I might be sensible to a certain "texturing" that others might not even notice in a picture.

-- (mpilgrem@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

it's weird, i wouldn't say the leica lenses are sharper than other lenses. i've done comparisons and the contax zeiss lenses are sharper. however, the leica lenses yield better pictures depsite not being as technically 'sharp'...

-- tim (emulsion71@hotmail.com), March 12, 2002.

To be sure, the lenses are the critical element. However, nobody has mentioned the smooth, low-vibration shutter and shutter release. This too is a contributing part of the equation. Enjoy your Leica!

-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), March 12, 2002.

The lenses.

After the first roll of K64 with the 400 f/6.8 my Nikon equipment sat unused until I sold it.

Ditto, except it was what I saw on Provia, not Kodachrome :)

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 12, 2002.

This thread is ridiculous. Mike Johnston, former editor or Photo techniques, ran a test using some 20 B&W prints taken with a 50mm Summicron (DR I believe) and a cheap Pentax Takumar lens. NO ONE could guess which was which. Marc, if you think you'll get much different results ion B&W with Leica lenses, you're setting yourself up for a disappointment. All these major manufacturers make superb lenses. Some of the new Leica lenses are also outstanding; but to see the results you may need to use the finest grain films with a heavy tripod -- nit exactly convenient with a Leica M.

-- Mitch Alland/Paris (malland@mac.com), March 12, 2002.

Well, I'm not doing anything fancy, just buildng a road about 6km north of Mt Barker. But I took a set of photos to document the works, you know, culverts, road cuts and the like. And everyone said, how do you get such great detail, great photographs. I used FP4+, and developed and printed the film my self. But the Leica lens I used was the 35/2 (last model, not the asph) and an old 90 TE. What more can I say. I noticed about 30 years ago, that there was someting special. So do others looking at the prints.

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@westnet.com.au), March 13, 2002.

That is one interesting answer you have Mitch. Although I would not have used the term ridiculous. I happen to find it a little too strong for my taste.

Since you are being straightforward, let me answer you this: I could not care less about what some biased editor of some photo magazine or whatever it is thinks about some lens or some particular brand; nor could I be interested in someone making tests such as the one you describe. Ridiculous is what these tests are. You are in France so you'll understand the analogy: it is like those French car magazines comparing some Renault Fuego Coupe and a Porsche Boxter, and saying: "Gee, they almost have the same performance". It makes me laugh.

I have witnessed this type of argument on the MF board w/ Hasselblad and other brands. I have a lot of MF equipment, and I can see the difference between them. Same for Leica in 35mm. I envy you if you can't: you can buy the Takumar lenses and be happy with them. I wish I could.

-- Marc Pilgrem (mpilgrem@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

There is something special I agree with the others, you cannot always see it, and sometimes other lenses have it to. But Leica lenses in general always have it (unless you screw up the focus or the image some way). That is what most of us buy into. The older lenses are less contrasty which can be very very nice compared to many of the current lenses which are technically superior. If you use a high contrast film like the Kodachromes the earlier lenses can seem to produce nicer images than the later ones. Many people equate high contrast with "sharper" so the later lenses can give a greater impact. But I think fondly of my shots taken with my 60's chrome 35mm Summaron 2.8, 50 'cron, Tele-Elmarit 90mm "fat", and 135mm Elmar shots with Kodachrome - it was a superb match.

Basically I think that Leica remain genuinely interested in fine performance and try their utmost to produce a lens that is fully useable at full aperture -- this is why they cost so much.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.

Robin, Great reply. I wish people would talk more about the classic older lenses. They are like little gems of experience or secret truths that do not always get passed on to newer generations of Leica users. Thats not intended to make you sound old! I am more often delighted by the performance of the older lenses than I am with the newest APO this or ASPH that [ for B&W anyway]. Thanks for sharing.

-- summicron (summicron_@hotmail.com), March 13, 2002.