Throughout this forum, there has been much discussion regarding the imaging differences or "fingerprints" between older 'legendary regarded' lenses, and the newer generation "sharper aspherical" lenses.

Summilux 35/1.4 Asph @ f/1.4, 1/30 sec

Lenses such as 50/2 DR, 21/3.4, 50/1.2, 35/2 pre-Asph + others have all recieved much praise over the years and have proven their worth through providing professionals such as Mary Ellen Mark, HCB and David Allen Harvey (to name a few) with fantastic results (image quality wise). The rest of the work was done by the skill of the photographer. Since then, Leica has released replacement models boasting improvements from distortion control, flare control, sperical abberation correction, contrast sharpness wide open, etc.

Summicron 50/2 latest @ f/2, 1/90 sec

Traditionalists have been a little apposed to the newer lenses (including ASPH) because of the main reason most of us praise these super sharp lenses....they call it "harsh shapness". They argue that the harsh sharpness tends to hurt the image in some way, as apposed to the soft-smooth fingerprint of the earlier lenses. In other words, "the softness wide open was/is good for images".

Well I am a little confused as to what this concept means. To me, a sharp image is better than a soft one, in most situations. And if I want to make an image soft, I can do it via manipulation with a filter or gel. I've seen soft images and I've seen sharp images, and after 9 years of going through a heap of equipment I have definately made my mind up on lenses that provide the sharpest images possible.

APO Summicron 90/2 Asph @ f/2, 1/60 sec

The displayed pics are shots I took yesterday as part of a Leica Club photo excursion. This is not my forte area, so the images aren't the most creative, but shooting wide open, I can't seem to identify the harshness some people are referring too. I see sharp images against beautiful out of focus areas. I am not boasting that "mine is better than yours", as I am aware of the excellent imaging qualities of earlier lenses, especially the much praised Pre-Asph Summicron/35. So is it that these people have an emotional attachment to their older lenses? Is it that they actually see an improved image? Or is it that they can't afford them?

APO Summicron 90/2 Asph @ f/2, 1/60 sec

Maybe other forum members can offer their own examples and views of either side, and we could all come to some conclusion or concensus about "what" type of lens makes the best image....EARLIER (slightly softer) VS LATER (sharper-expecially wide open). I guess the application or purpose would also determine the usefulness of either type of lens.

I am not arguing that newer is better, just that the latest Leica lenses seem to be so good, that it is difficult to comprehend what the traditionalists are talking about.

Please submit a picture and/or leave your view.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 29, 2002

Answers

I doubt that a JPG picture is going to show the differences that we have been discussing. The pictures above, as seen on a computer monitor, could have been taken by almost any good lens. As I asked in a posting to the "Mike Johnston on print glow" thread, I wonder how the differences between the old lenses and the new "sharp-harsh" lenses shows up in color as opposed to B&W, which is what we have been discussing in the other thread.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 29, 2002.

I agree with Mitch. I don't even bother making posts like this anymore. I've done a number of extensive tests on 'this or that', where there is an obvious difference on the prints, but once scanned and put on the moniter the difference becomes negligible on my Sony (read $$$ photo monitor. When looked at on the average home monitor the difference can't be seen at all.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), April 29, 2002.

If I wanted to compare or try to discern a/any difference between the older lenses and the latest ASPH's, I'd probably shoot a variety of subjects in various lighting conditions, and use a film like T- max 100 and print on a paper that would hopefully not conceal the differences. I generally don't work with the kind of mind-set needed for these sorts of "trials" - but if you want to make sure you're not fooling yourself or just building on an already established bias, you've got to have a protocol and a little discipline. I'd tend to doubt, however, that such differences or characteristics could handily be demonstrated via computer "viewing".

Regards,

-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 29, 2002.

Kristian - I use the new lenses as you know, and I've never been able to understand what the old lens "master of bokeh" stuff is all about. The new ones do a good job, IMO. Nice scans, BTW.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 29, 2002.

Kristian,I agree with the others that it is hard to make comparisons on a monitor but a few observations about your shots. I find the out of focus areas in the 35/1.4 Asph to be quite annoying, especially the white/light area on the lower right and at the top. The building and foilage, to me, looks OK but not great so it seems that this lens might have trouble with background light sources. My Canon 35/2 c1965 which has been rated comparable to the 2nd/3rd Summicron of that period certainally from my experience provides much more pleasing out of focus areas. The 90/2 Asph in both photos looks like it renders out of focus areas very well. The background of the flowers is beautiful and soft (very similiar to a 90/4 Elmar I have) and the background of the girl (although not that out of focus)IMO is handled well. It is hard to tell from the 50/2 shot but my guess from the bright green near the top, which looks a little harsh to me, that lens also might not handle bright sources that well.

-- Gerry Widen (gwiden@alliancepartners.org), April 29, 2002.

Hi, Kristian:

Yes, you gessed right ! ! For some people affordability IS an issue ! !

But some of us are perfectly happy with the old lenses anyhow.

In my case, the old lenses I own and my equally old M3s are perfectly suited for ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 29, 2002.

(Something wrong happened to this mail . . .)

Kristian:

Yes, you guessed right ! ! For some people affordability IS an issue ! !

But some of us are perfectly happy with the old lenses anyhow.

In my case the old lenses the same as my equally old M3s are perfectly suited for ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 29, 2002.

I have been testing different version of 35mm against the asph35/f2 version (which I own) lately. I use Velvia on tripod. Same body (M6 classic), cloudy day, both indoor and out door. Basically an A/B test of the same scene shooting through different lens. I pick some colorful subject, some with side light details etc. The images then projected onto 7 ft. matt white screen with RT projector, super colorpan pro lens. The computer screen can not tell the difference I don't think. Here is what we found. When doing A/B comparision, all of us pick the asph version because of snappiness, colors are deeper and whites are definitely brighter. The Summaron f3.5 and older version Summicron loose out. But These are only a dozen of images of fixed subject, in real life shooting,it is not the same. Me and my friends were shooting side by side on different photo trips. After looking through about 50 rolls of Velvia and some Provia, you would have come to some opinon on the signature of different lenses. The older lens has some "glow" that my asph version is lacking. In particular, shooting people, winner are pre-asph. Generally color are more pleasing, there are more depth to the image in the older lens. The asph is so clear that some artistic feeling were gone. it is hard to explain in words untill you see so many images and has that feeling. That is why I did the A/B shootout comparison because I didn't trust my own eyes. Of course I am talking very very minor difference and a lot of personal preference. I rather loose out a tiny bit of clearity (I wouldn't say sharpness) and gain more color rendition and richness. My conclusion is it depends on the subject and also personal liking. Lastnight I bought the German 4th version pre-asph on Ebay(buy it now) for $850.

-- chi cheung (chic@intergate.bc.ca), April 29, 2002.

(Something wrong happened to this mail . . .) Kristian:

Yes, you guessed right ! ! For some people affordability IS an issue ! !

But some of us are perfectly happy with the old lenses anyhow.

In my case the old lenses the same as my equally old M3s are perfectly suited for the kind of photography I do with them so that I haven't found a reason good enou$$ to justify the extra economical effort that buying new lenses would mean. Nor have I looked for it too hard either . . .

Regards, Kristian. Thanks for sharing your photos.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 29, 2002.

What's that in the background of the first photo--was there a big doughnut foodfight at this excursion? I don't remember seeing quite that effect in my older lenses.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 29, 2002.

All these pics show only how the latest lenses perform. One cannot tell how good or different they are with regard to older models without side-by-side comparisonss shot under identical conditions.

Yes those are donuts we see in the first pic, though not the worse kind. However, I believe the OOF highlights can look different under varied circumstances, e.g. the f/stop used, the focused distance, how far, how big and how bright those light sources are, etc. I have had good and not-pretty bokeh with a single lens.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 29, 2002.

...and the location of the light source within the frame can also play a part in its rendition.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 29, 2002.

I'm with Ivan B. I can (sort of) afford the older lenses, and they get the job done. The lower contrast of the older lenses can benefit my low-light work by helping to preserve some shadow detail (though in strongly-backlit situations, I with I had more modern coatings). I think part of the "traditionalist" view is simply a reaction against the "must have the latest and greatest" view. No one has ever complained about the technical quality of images from my scuffed up, 40-year-old DR Summicron or first-generation Summilux . . .

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 29, 2002.

Nice post Kristian, and I love to see Leica shots taken wide-open, the real domain of Leica glass (IMHO). Of course there are limitations to image quality on a computer display (I still shine them on the wall or make B&W prints).

You have really nice gear, all lenses from the list of THE LENSES! I am like you in the sense that I much prefer the best possible lenses in the first instance. I also have some interest in the older glass, like the 50/3.5 LTM Elmars, but only on a secondary, curiosity, basis.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), April 29, 2002.

Gee looking at Mike's image makes me think that with a decent scanner it may be possible to see the diffences on screen. Already his shot looks much sharper then mine.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 01, 2002.

This whole issue would become quite obvious if you make your own prints with a Leica enlarger or something else with a glass carrier and a top notch enlarging lens.If you shoot MF or LF and use a lot of different lenses of all vintages you will also start to see the differences . There are a lot of differences here that of course there is no other way of discerning other than by experience first hand. Lenses are like people...each with very different characteristics and personality.

-- Emile de leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 01, 2002.

I enjoy the EOS 20-35mm f/2.8 L and its convenience/quality/price factors are right on the mark. However under back lighting it flares horribly. I like Leica for its resistance to flare and this quality is the first thing I look for in any lens review because I like to shoot backlit portraits and I like to shoot in the worst condition even during midday. I am probably preaching to the converted but Leica makes some very high performance products despite what some may consider a nostalgia brand. This is the reason why I prefer modern Leica glass. Other factors such as color, contrast, tonality I can control somewhat with film and processing but not flare control.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), May 01, 2002.

Kristian, I apply a mild unsharp mask to my final web image to restore a little of the snap that's lost in scanning. That may be the difference you're seeing. (The print is razor sharp, though.)

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 02, 2002.

When ever I hear/read the statement that the 'new' lens are sharper, and therefore 'better' I go to Stephen Holloway's site and it all becomes academic. link link link link link link

Lets do a search of this site and see how often the Summarit was praised.

-- Doug Ford (dford@san.rr.com), May 02, 2002.

Bokeh. Shmokeh. I use newer M lenses simply because they're better optically. But I have no doubt that a better photographer than me will produce superior images with an older M lens. The optical quality of older lenses (such as the 50/2 DR or 21/3.4 SA)is sufficient to produce breathtaking images in the hands of a masterful photographer.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), May 02, 2002.

Mike mentioned what for me is the key difference between the two generations of lenses. It's all in the backlighting. If there is a strong point source of light in the frame then the older lenses will flare. This may or may not lead to a nice effect but it's not very controllable. However, if you can avoid the backlight the older images give a nicer picture IMO.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), May 02, 2002.

Russell's comment brought to my attention a distinction that I should make about when that flare is problematic. What he says is true--point sources do create a bigger "blob" of flare and probably contribute to overall, veiling flare. But in real-world situations, that isn't usually a big problem. What wrecks shots with the old lenses is when there's a large area of the frame that's much lighter than my subject (e.g. a lightly-overcast, bright sky behind a person who's the subject)--in those situations, there's so much extra light going into the lens that the veiling glare is overpowering.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), May 02, 2002.

Kristian,

I love that last shot. Whatever lens you shot it with is not important. The photo is just absolutely beautiful!

But to the nit and the gritty. I have two naturalist (Zola, etc.) lenses that really get into the harsh reality of real life--the DR Summicron 50/2 and the Summicron 35/2ASPH.

I shot my wife's friend with the 50. She mugged for me in a way that always charmed me. Then the prints came back. And then I saw the tragedy of this person's life--an rapidly aging spinster trying so hard to act like a teenager. There were all the wrinkles, the flacid skin. Then I photographed myself with the 35...

When I stand in front of that mirror again it will be with my forgiving old 'lux 35/1.4.

The 35/2 ASPH doesn't have that "glow." But some things and some people are not meant to glow. My vanity crushed, I admit it--I don't glow.

All lens are valid in the hands of the right photographer!

Cheers,

Alex

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4-u.or.jp), May 02, 2002.

Sometimes flare really adds to the atmosphere of the pic. I remember the concert scenes in one of the Beatles films I think it was "A hard Days Night" . The images were wanted by the management to be taken out of the film but happily kept in for some of the best imagery of a "60's" rock band ever filmed.

-- Emile de Leon (knightpeople@msn.com), May 02, 2002.

Hey Kristian - I think I did that chick in your photos. Can't remember her name though.

-- pinhead (blieb@sheridanross.com), May 03, 2002.

Hey Kristian, great photos, esp. the 1st one. Really portrays the mood- esp. the colors and composition. Keep up the good thoughtful and illustrative posts mate! *grin*

-- James (snodoggydogg@hotmail.com), May 03, 2002.

hey Pinhead, all you could "do" to a chick is stick your 1mm pinhead in her ear. Keep dreaming mate!

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), May 05, 2002.