Is the "Leica Glow" just code for optical flaws?

[MP Guy]

I just finished a deep-dive re-evaluation of the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM on the Leica M11. While the Summilux FLE is the "bench-mark," I’ve found that this 10-year-old Zeiss design actually pushes the 60MP sensor much further in terms of micro-contrast and 3D pop. I skipped the MTF charts to focus on real-world results from surgical portraits to landscape clarity.

Check out the full comparison and high res samples here:Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM vs. Leica Summilux FLE: Why the Distagon Wins on the M11

 

[Rayt]

The Zeiss was known to be the better lens when it came out but any performance differences took a back seat to poor user experience due to the size and lack of focusing tab. This was pretty much what the reviewers were saying and I sold mine for the same reason. My favorite Leica 35mm is the Summilux Asph pre-FLE.

So what do Leica glow and optical flaw have anything to do with it other than click bait?

 

[Miles.]

I think the term "Leica glow" comes from a generation of shooters/collectors who were using vintage glass before pointing a flashlight through them to identify haze and micro scratches became a thing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm having hard time to find microcontrast and glow after I left bw film and darkroom prints.

 

[Richard G]

My pre-ASPH Summilux 35 has glow at f1.4, dreadful and intolerable for the most part. But I’ve taken a few shots where the little bit of mystery comes in. Still, mostly I use it at f5.6. The magic of the ZM C Sonnar completely cured me of my interest in the “Lux ASPH” and the 25 2.8 Biogon is the sharpest lens I have. If I needed another 35 1.4 of course I’d go with the Zeiss 1.4 over the Leica equivalent aperture lenses. Point is for me they are all too big and heavy and I don’t need 1.4.

 

[Archiver]

After seeing many amazing images by Michael Bialecki on RFF, and receiving encouragement from others RFFers, I bought a Distagon 35 in 2020 and it has been incredible. I've said before that this is an endgame lens, it's just that good. Some of my best and most loved images have been taken with it, and it plays well with the SL2S, thank goodness. The size doesn't bother me, I was fine with the size of the Voigtlander 35/1.2 so the Distagon is nothing new.

As for Leica Glow, who knows. I just like the lenses that I like.

 

[Duofold RF]

Is this what the OP talk about?

 

[MP Guy]

I personally don't find the size being an issue. it's trivial. I think too much focus on size is really keeping people from benefitting from the lens. no one complains about noct's or other m lenses which arte small but bigger than the zeiss 35. just my 2 cents.

 

[ellisson]

To me, "glow" has more to do with the light, the quality of light, and where the main subject s) falls within that light. It has less to do with lens optical imperfections, unless you consider coma "glow".
Leica M9 monochrome, Apo-summicron 50mm f2 lens at f2, Iso 3200.
Chestnut St., Philadelphia

 

[ddutchison2]

All optical formula have flaws, the art of the designer is in balancing them. I understand that Leitz's design philosophy was to emphasize resolution of minute detail at the expense of overall sharpness while classical Zeiss was the opposite. I also think the absence of coating (or less effective single coating) as well as less effective or even missing anti-halation layers in the film are as responsible as any design parameters in defining that look.
{edited}

 

[splitimageview]

I always thought Leica glow was just a fancy way of describing low contrast, coma and spherical aberration. "Leica glow" just costs more. 😎

The Zeiss 35/1.4 is the best overall performer I've ever tried on a Leica. Especially for the price, I think I paid a little more than 1k for mine. Nothing else comes close.

 

[Mackinaw]

When I was on LUG years back (Leica Users Group), one of the more respected members frequently said that the Leica "glow" was nothing more than a pleasing combination of various optical aberrations.

Jim B.

 

[Bill Blackwell]

I just finished a deep-dive re-evaluation of the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM on the Leica M11. While the Summilux FLE is the "bench-mark," I’ve found that this 10-year-old Zeiss design actually pushes the 60MP sensor much further in terms of micro-contrast and 3D pop. I skipped the MTF charts to focus on real-world results from surgical portraits to landscape clarity. ...

I've owned the 35mm Zeiss Distagon for many years now. It's one of the best performers in my bag. It's rivaled only by the 50mm Asph Summilux.

Leica M-P 240, Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon ZM

 

[ellisson]

I just finished a deep-dive re-evaluation of the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM on the Leica M11. While the Summilux FLE is the "bench-mark," I’ve found that this 10-year-old Zeiss design actually pushes the 60MP sensor much further in terms of micro-contrast and 3D pop. I skipped the MTF charts to focus on real-world results from surgical portraits to landscape clarity.

Check out the full comparison and high res samples here:Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM vs. Leica Summilux FLE: Why the Distagon Wins on the M11
View attachment 4885837

MP Guy, I understand your enthusiasm for the excellent Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM lens, but reading over your review on the Pure Rangefinder website, your descriptions seem exaggerated when looking at the images you have posted as examples of the lens' virtues. In fact, there are no comparison images with the Leica Summilx 35mm FLE asph version II lens. You repeat terms like "surgical sharpness" without correlation with the images, claiming that snowflakes and pine needles are resolved on landscape images! And I see hair smearing just like on any other 35mm lens at distance from the subject. After all, this is not close-up macro-photography! Edge to edge sharpness is one thing, but that is only uniform sharpness over the frame, not the degree of resolution you claim it to have. I would lose some of these unsubstantiated claims about this lens and have real comparisons as evidence for your preference of one lens over another. That's a lot of work, but check out some of Fred Miranda's lens assessments for the detail required to really compare different lenses.

P.S., I think it's how comfortable you are with a given lens and other camera gear - rendering, haptics, strengths, flaws - that makes one favor one lens over others to make the photos you want.

 

[MP Guy]

MP Guy, I understand your enthusiasm for the excellent Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 ZM lens, but reading over your review on the Pure Rangefinder website, your descriptions seem exaggerated when looking at the images you have posted as examples of the lens' virtues. In fact, there are no comparison images with the Leica Summilx 35mm FLE asph version II lens. You repeat terms like "surgical sharpness" without correlation with the images, claiming that snowflakes and pine needles are resolved on landscape images! And I see hair smearing just like on any other 35mm lens at distance from the subject. After all, this is not close-up macro-photography! Edge to edge sharpness is one thing, but that is only uniform sharpness over the frame, not the degree of resolution you claim it to have. I would lose some of these unsubstantiated claims about this lens and have real comparisons as evidence for your preference of one lens over another. That's a lot of work, but check out some of Fred Miranda's lens assessments for the detail required to really compare different lenses.

P.S., I think it's how comfortable you are with a given lens and other camera gear - rendering, haptics, strengths, flaws - that makes one favor one lens over others to make the photos you want.

Good points. When I looked at my images i was looking at full res images not scaled down shown in the review which would explain my enthusiasm. And yes. I failed to drop some lux images in there. I will get some in by the weekend for comparison.

 

[MP Guy]

I've owned the 35mm Zeiss Distagon for many years now. It's one of the best performers in my bag. It's rivaled only by the 50mm Asph Summilux.
View attachment 4885932
Leica M-P 240, Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon ZM

Love it.