Leica Glow

P

polleke

Member
Local time
8:29 AM
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
12
Location
Zandvoort NL
View My Gallery
Do all Leitz lenses deliver that typical "Leica Glow" quality? Or are there exceptions?

Do all non-Leitz lenses lack that quality? Or are there exceptions?

I am on a tight budget, and will have to choose: an M with non-Leitz glass, or a Bessa with.
 
Well,
some years ago I bought a Leica Z2X which was on sale for 99 €, because I wanted to own a Leica.
Picture quality was outstanding. It blew away my Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, which is said to be quite a good lens.
I got hooked and invested into a small Leica R system and picture quality was second to none. Even the "cheapo" 35-70/3.5 delivers gorgeous results.

However, the M-Hexanon lens are - in my opinion - on par, but depending on the subject, I also love the looks of my J-3 and J-8.
I have not tried the CV lens, yet, but will get the opportunity soon.

So, I would go for the M with non-Leitz glass and some Konica, CV and Jupiter lens.

Best regards,
Uwe
 
You CAN get an affordable Leica and Glass:
an M2 (currently the best price on the used market - and a great camera,
about the price of a new Bessa R[23][am]) and a 40/2 Summicron-C (the lens should
run you around US 300).

Best,

Roland.
 
Two threads here.
One is that the "glow" is apparently somewhat subjective, and may also have to do with uncoated lenses shooting against the light. There was an interesting article on this subject written by Frances Shultz and her husband Roger some months ago. Conclusion after comparative shooting on two different cameras was that it was elusive and somewhat in the eye of the beholder. So, conculsion - probably not worth paying a fortune for the lenses.

Second thread: Many people, myself included, are very happy with the Bessa 3A/M or 4 series with CV lenses which rate very well. "Glow"? Maybe not, but much more affordable.

An afterthought: I wanted a Leica too. I ended up buying two IIIf bodies and lenses. I use my CV LTM lenses on the Leica bodies when the need arises. (Doesn't apply to the 'M' mount lenses of course). Not quite as convenient in use as the Bessa but I can at least say I own two Leica's!
 
Leica Glow doesn't exist ....

However some lenses are designed in such a manner that under certain circumstances somewhat of a glow can be seen. Sofar I have only been able to encounter this in B&W when you push Tri-x for instance..... but then again lots of lenses will give "glowing" results.
Leica lenses are amongst the best in the market, personally even amongst the asph. a standard 50mm cron will give you the best results, if your into taking pictures of walls and test charts that is (purely technical) The older uncoated provide best results for B&W the mdern coated ones for chrome and color..... but the Leica "Glow" ... nah .... no more than a myth.
Perhaps it refers to some series of lenses that were made with radioactive glass.....
 
I want my Leica photos to look pretty much as I expect. No glow, please! My Leitz/Leica lenses: Summaron 35mm f/3.5, Summaron 35mm f/2.8, Summicron 50mm f/2 (latest), Elmar 50mm f/2.8 (latest), Tele-Elmarit 90mm f/2.8 (thin).
 
Lubitel, is that the Abominable Snowpooch?

Richard, I think that is the correct attitude. I feel the same way about my Canon, FSU and Steinheil lenses, and I felt the same about the Leitz and Komura and Angenieux and E. German ones I have had.

Given that few lenses have exceptional characteristics and that these characteristics can be perceived subjectively if not imagined, it seems to me that the sensible approach is to have lenses whose all round performance is merely satisfactory.
 
I'm a believer...

I'm a believer...

I had read about the "glow" for a few years and wondered what it was all about. I bought a Leica because it is a extremely well made camera and the features matched my style of shooting. Then I started shooting with it. I noticed a difference right away. I couldn't explain it, but it was there. I'm using modern Leica glass and I still get the effect. The 2 photos below are perfect examples of what I consider the "glow".
bmbq_042207_2_30.jpg

fury_032407_1_07.jpg
 
I think pretty much "Leica Glow" has more to do with the power of suggestion than any feat of engineering.

Any older lens with single coating or no coating will probably produce images that "glow" as much as you want.

I've got an 1891 Emil Busch brass lens mounted on a bellows, attached to a Kodak Pro 14n, and it's razor sharp, and glows like there's no tomorrow......
 
Article on how to get "the glow"

Article on how to get "the glow"

Michael Johnston (of controversial Leica M8 review fame) wrote a nice article in his "sunday morning photographer" series on how to get the glow. He identified a combination of shooting conditions, lenses, film, and processing/printing.

The article is here at the Luminous Landscape website.

He definitely identifies older normal lenses as key. Specifically, he calls out Leica Noctilux and Summarit lenses and also mentions Pentax M42 50's and the Ricoh 55mm F1.2 as good "glow" lenses.
 
As I recall he also considered other factors than just the lens; foreground/background contrast, planes of focus, and the enlarger light source among others.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
There is probably "disagreement" on what people regard as glow. Some look at is as veiling flair. I prefer the term "signature" of a lens.

Most of my higher contrast lenses would have los the shadow detail on this shot. The Summarit's lower contrast can be a big advantage with harsh lighting.

Summarit-M 5cm F1.5, wide-open.



The Summarit produces a very smooth tonal range.
Click to expand...
Couldn't you achieve the same effect (lowered contrast), at least for b&w, with any lens, by pulling/overexposure?
 
The words "Leica glow" bring about the wrath and ire of those who haven't experienced it, and in their disbelief ridicule it by posting pictures with glare galore, or super-pumped highlights.

But I discovered what it was when I used my Summitar:


Leica M6 + Summitar @ f/2 / XP2

And the Summarit:

Leica M3 + Summarit @ f/2.8 / FP4+ in Diafine

It is not an "automatic" thing that comes up in photos. You have to have the right conditions. I've seen some shots wasting the inherent properties and flaws by people compensating with hyper-tart contrast.

Let low contrast be your friend in the shadows 😉 Like Brian pointed out, there's where some of the so-called glow lies.
 
i bought into the leica hype and now i know the "glow" is just bs. I kept my leica around because I love its built quality and it's a solid compact film solution for me.

All the wonderful images I see in this thread are good because of the content, composition etc.. not how the lens renders the edge detail or the bokeh.
 
Last edited:
lament said:
Couldn't you achieve the same effect (lowered contrast), at least for b&w, with any lens, by pulling/overexposure?
Click to expand...
Not with any lens. In very few words, if the lens is super-contrasty, you're not going to recover low contrast. You can't recover on film what wasn't already recorded.

I know it boggles the mind for many.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Not with any lens. In very few words, if the lens is super-contrasty, you're not going to recover low contrast. You can't recover on film what wasn't already recorded.

I know it boggles the mind for many.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a direct comparison of a low contrast lens against a high contrast lens. I know the differences will be very small
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom