J. Borger
Well-known
I use a 35 Summicron asph but find it sometimes harsh and too contrasty.
So i'm considering to add a 35mm Summaron/ 2.8 ..... i want a lens with a more vintage Leica Look. Also a lens that:
- has less contrast .. so it is better suited for B&W work on sunny days
- is not well corrected for color ... i love pastels ... want a lens that gives me an old vintage color look!
If the Summaron does not fit this discription .. which lenses do (also in other focal lengths).
Any samples out there .. color or B&W .. ??
Thanks in advance for any samples/ pointers.
Han
So i'm considering to add a 35mm Summaron/ 2.8 ..... i want a lens with a more vintage Leica Look. Also a lens that:
- has less contrast .. so it is better suited for B&W work on sunny days
- is not well corrected for color ... i love pastels ... want a lens that gives me an old vintage color look!
If the Summaron does not fit this discription .. which lenses do (also in other focal lengths).
Any samples out there .. color or B&W .. ??
Thanks in advance for any samples/ pointers.
Han
onnovisser
Established
though my website seems to be out of order (aboutonno.tk) most pictures were taken with a summaron, look in serie no. 2
It's a great lens! I love it, nice colors too.. And I love the focussing tab
It's a great lens! I love it, nice colors too.. And I love the focussing tab
richard_l
Well-known
The Summaron 2.8 is a great 35mm lens: almost as sharp and contrasty as the Summicron. It's probably not what you're looking for. The attached image was taken with the Summaron. (Sorry about the garish green. Blame it on the Fuji Superior X-tra.)
There is a similar question running on this thread, and Sean Reid posted link to shots taken with a Canon 35mm F2.8.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107055#post107055
I have both the Canon 35mm F2.8 and Summaron 35mm F2.8. From your description of desired qualities, I would go with the Canon. It is lower contrast, and has the older "look" to it. It gives pastel colors, lower contrast, and soft -pleasing- image. The Summaron is sharp and contrasty. The Canon 35mm F2.8 is a 6 element design and is noticably sharper than the 3.5cm F3.5 Nikkor (4 element Elmar copy) in LTM that I had. The Nikkor gets sharper at F8 or so. I also have a 3.5cm F2.5 Nikkor in S-Mount, it is sharp and contrasty and gives picture postcard colors.
The Canon 35mm F2.8 also cost about 1/3rd of the Summaron.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107055#post107055
I have both the Canon 35mm F2.8 and Summaron 35mm F2.8. From your description of desired qualities, I would go with the Canon. It is lower contrast, and has the older "look" to it. It gives pastel colors, lower contrast, and soft -pleasing- image. The Summaron is sharp and contrasty. The Canon 35mm F2.8 is a 6 element design and is noticably sharper than the 3.5cm F3.5 Nikkor (4 element Elmar copy) in LTM that I had. The Nikkor gets sharper at F8 or so. I also have a 3.5cm F2.5 Nikkor in S-Mount, it is sharp and contrasty and gives picture postcard colors.
The Canon 35mm F2.8 also cost about 1/3rd of the Summaron.
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
Onno .... thanks the pictures look great!
Richard & Brian .............. i guess i have to go for the Canon indeed. It seems to have the look i'm after a lot more. As an addition to my summicron it makes more sense!
Brian ... the other thread was also started by me ... i cross posted because i was not sure the real Leica connaiseurs would check the R-D1 forum
Thanks again guys !
Han
Richard & Brian .............. i guess i have to go for the Canon indeed. It seems to have the look i'm after a lot more. As an addition to my summicron it makes more sense!
Brian ... the other thread was also started by me ... i cross posted because i was not sure the real Leica connaiseurs would check the R-D1 forum
Thanks again guys !
Han
R
ray_g
Guest
Han,
I would not discount the inexpensive J-12 either, for those qualities you mentioned.
I would not discount the inexpensive J-12 either, for those qualities you mentioned.
> i cross posted because i was not sure the real Leica connaiseurs would check the R-D1 forum
No need to worry about that! Most of us would love to have an RD-1 dropped into our laps!
No need to worry about that! Most of us would love to have an RD-1 dropped into our laps!
zeos 386sx
Well-known
I second what has been said in previous posts - the summaron is sharp and contrasty. However, there is another way to get the qualities that you are after - post process your negatives in Photoshop.
Making a soft lense sharp is hard. Making a sharp lens soft is easy. I'd buy the summaron.
Making a soft lense sharp is hard. Making a sharp lens soft is easy. I'd buy the summaron.
The intended camera is digital, an RD-1.
As stated in another thread, if the higher contrast lens causes "clipping" in the digital image, portions of the image are lost. A lower contrast lens will "compress" the intensity range of the image and reduce clipping. The response of the CCD is linear, so increasing contrast is easier than reducing contrast if the image has become clipped.
As stated in another thread, if the higher contrast lens causes "clipping" in the digital image, portions of the image are lost. A lower contrast lens will "compress" the intensity range of the image and reduce clipping. The response of the CCD is linear, so increasing contrast is easier than reducing contrast if the image has become clipped.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Brian,
You raise an interesting point and it's a point I haven't seen much in reviews of digital cameras.
I have to admit that the only digital camera I own is a Sony Mavica with a dedicated lense so help me out here. I have read conflicting comparisons of film and CCD/CMOS contrast rendition. Some say film is more contrasty - some say CCD's are more contrasty.
Do we have to start testing different lenses with new digital cameras to make certain that they don't cause "clipping"? Is the old standard of sharp/contrasty being good about to be thrown out by a new digital reality. If so, then its easy to see why Leica has taken so long to get their digital cameras to market. Their cameras have to be tweaked to compensate for those fabulous sharp and contrasty Leica lenses.
You raise an interesting point and it's a point I haven't seen much in reviews of digital cameras.
I have to admit that the only digital camera I own is a Sony Mavica with a dedicated lense so help me out here. I have read conflicting comparisons of film and CCD/CMOS contrast rendition. Some say film is more contrasty - some say CCD's are more contrasty.
Do we have to start testing different lenses with new digital cameras to make certain that they don't cause "clipping"? Is the old standard of sharp/contrasty being good about to be thrown out by a new digital reality. If so, then its easy to see why Leica has taken so long to get their digital cameras to market. Their cameras have to be tweaked to compensate for those fabulous sharp and contrasty Leica lenses.
richard_l
Well-known
The old 35mm f/3.5 Elmar might do what you want. It's a beautiful, jewel-like, very skinny LTM lens. I think most, maybe all, are pre-war, so they're probably uncoated. They are fairly popular among the screwmount crowd, and the images I've seen have that classic low contrast look. I wouldn't mind having one, but whenever one appears on eBay, it seems like somebody always wants it badly enough to get it by bidding more than it's worth.
doubs43
Well-known
richard_l said:
Richard, the 35mm Elmar f/3.5 in LTM was made post-war and coated. I have one of each - coated & un-coated. I also have the 35mm f/3.5 Summaron that is yet another option and takes great images. The attached picture was taken with a Leica IIIc & the Summaron with an orange filter on Ilford FP-4.
Walker
J. Borger
Well-known
Thanks everybody for the valuable feedback ... i'll have a look at the elmar too.
THe summicron 35 asph works fantastic and i would not want to part with it ........ the possible clipping is at risk in extreme conditions only. It's very easy to add the contrast where ever you want to afterwards in PS when using a low contrast lens.
I want an old lens with low contrast as an addition ...... not as a substitute ...for 3 reasons
- the low contrast indeed as stated , for the situation as described, not a strict necessity but it makes life easier in those situations
- a more vintage look compared to the 35 summicron asph
- i want a vintage color-look off camera .. the way color pictures in the old -days looked ... i simply like old pastel type colorpictures from rhe 60's & 70's --- the old lenses give me this
Another way to put it is : the modern Leica lenses work also fabulous on the Epson R-D1 .... but on the Epson.. the same as with film .. the character of a lens shows as Sean Read described and pointed out in his lenstests for the R-D1 at Luminous landscape.
If i had to rate the lenses i own so far for the looks i would rate:
1. 75 Summilux
2. 50 Summicron (current version)
3. 35 Summicron ASPH.
I think this preference has not very much to do with performance on the R-D1, but with personal preference for a certain look.
The rating is from smooth to harsh i guess.
NOw assume i would want a 50 summilux ..... should i go for the new ASPH or for the old Lux ??? I would be in real doubt comparing the pictures i have seen from both.
Han
zeos 386sx said:
THe summicron 35 asph works fantastic and i would not want to part with it ........ the possible clipping is at risk in extreme conditions only. It's very easy to add the contrast where ever you want to afterwards in PS when using a low contrast lens.
I want an old lens with low contrast as an addition ...... not as a substitute ...for 3 reasons
- the low contrast indeed as stated , for the situation as described, not a strict necessity but it makes life easier in those situations
- a more vintage look compared to the 35 summicron asph
- i want a vintage color-look off camera .. the way color pictures in the old -days looked ... i simply like old pastel type colorpictures from rhe 60's & 70's --- the old lenses give me this
Another way to put it is : the modern Leica lenses work also fabulous on the Epson R-D1 .... but on the Epson.. the same as with film .. the character of a lens shows as Sean Read described and pointed out in his lenstests for the R-D1 at Luminous landscape.
If i had to rate the lenses i own so far for the looks i would rate:
1. 75 Summilux
2. 50 Summicron (current version)
3. 35 Summicron ASPH.
I think this preference has not very much to do with performance on the R-D1, but with personal preference for a certain look.
The rating is from smooth to harsh i guess.
NOw assume i would want a 50 summilux ..... should i go for the new ASPH or for the old Lux ??? I would be in real doubt comparing the pictures i have seen from both.
Han
breakaway
Established
I was browsing through pnet and came across this post about someone using his electro 35 over
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CyHx&unified_p=1
What surprised me was when i looked at his photos, some of them had that pastel look esp.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3565097
On closer inspection, i realise that it may be the direction of the sun that may have caused the look. (possible?) I'm no expert in this so would like to see what others have to say.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CyHx&unified_p=1
What surprised me was when i looked at his photos, some of them had that pastel look esp.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3565097
On closer inspection, i realise that it may be the direction of the sun that may have caused the look. (possible?) I'm no expert in this so would like to see what others have to say.
richard_l
Well-known
Thanks for the info. I would probably rather have the post-war coated version.doubs43 said:
Nice photo with the f/3.5 Summaron. Judging from that picture I would guess that the f/3.5 Summaron is just as sharp but less contrasty than the f/2.8 version.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
I just read Sean Reid's RD-1 "field test" at Luminous-Landscape. He states the following:
"Every lens has its own way of drawing, if you will, an image on the sensor or frame of film. The core characteristics of that drawing hold true regardless of the capture method."
I understand that perfectly.
---------------------------
In comparing the ISO accuracy of the RD-1 to the Canon 10D he notes a difference in sensitivity:
"Are the Canon and Leica performing a bit above ISO standards or is the Epson performing a bit below them? I have no way of knowing for certain but I can say that the 10D is slightly more sensitive than the R-D1 at all ISO levels."
---------------------------
Last, Sean recommends "Ansel Adam’s technical books called: 'The Camera' and 'The Negative'... to all serious photographers".
---------------------------
Every camera is individual. Like different batches of film, each has to be tested for its characteristics. A shutter can vary - fast or slow - over its setting range. Light meters can vary at the same ISO setting and may need to be adjusted to match each other. I assume that the electronic elements of modern cameras suffer from manufacturing tolerances that require the same attention to detail to achieve accurate exposures.
Anyone who has ever used the zone system knows that you have to meter accurately based upon tests that you have conducted with your equipment and the photographic media you are using.
What Brian is suggesting is new to me - "if the higher contrast lens causes "clipping" in the digital image, portions of the image are lost. A lower contrast lens will "compress" the intensity range of the image and reduce clipping. The response of the CCD is linear, so increasing contrast is easier than reducing contrast if the image has become clipped."
That suggests that what used to be accomplished by accurate exposure and film development must now be accomplished by changing lenses.
I admit my ignorance of digital cameras and I am not trying to start an argument. I would simply like someone to explain how you transition from the zone system in film to accurate exposures in digital. Are film users going to be able to transition old skills into the digital age or are we just jumping off a cliff into a new reality?
"Every lens has its own way of drawing, if you will, an image on the sensor or frame of film. The core characteristics of that drawing hold true regardless of the capture method."
I understand that perfectly.
---------------------------
In comparing the ISO accuracy of the RD-1 to the Canon 10D he notes a difference in sensitivity:
"Are the Canon and Leica performing a bit above ISO standards or is the Epson performing a bit below them? I have no way of knowing for certain but I can say that the 10D is slightly more sensitive than the R-D1 at all ISO levels."
---------------------------
Last, Sean recommends "Ansel Adam’s technical books called: 'The Camera' and 'The Negative'... to all serious photographers".
---------------------------
Every camera is individual. Like different batches of film, each has to be tested for its characteristics. A shutter can vary - fast or slow - over its setting range. Light meters can vary at the same ISO setting and may need to be adjusted to match each other. I assume that the electronic elements of modern cameras suffer from manufacturing tolerances that require the same attention to detail to achieve accurate exposures.
Anyone who has ever used the zone system knows that you have to meter accurately based upon tests that you have conducted with your equipment and the photographic media you are using.
What Brian is suggesting is new to me - "if the higher contrast lens causes "clipping" in the digital image, portions of the image are lost. A lower contrast lens will "compress" the intensity range of the image and reduce clipping. The response of the CCD is linear, so increasing contrast is easier than reducing contrast if the image has become clipped."
That suggests that what used to be accomplished by accurate exposure and film development must now be accomplished by changing lenses.
I admit my ignorance of digital cameras and I am not trying to start an argument. I would simply like someone to explain how you transition from the zone system in film to accurate exposures in digital. Are film users going to be able to transition old skills into the digital age or are we just jumping off a cliff into a new reality?
zeos 386sx
Well-known
I have a follow-up question. What exactly does "clipping" look like in a picture. Is it like a blown highlight or does it manifest itself as digital noise?
phototone
Well-known
zeos 386sx said:
Clipping looks like a washed-out highlight. On film, you could "burn this down" when making a print and actually get detail. On digital when you try in photoshop to "burn down" the area it just goes darker, without showing detail, because the imager didn't register any detail. Many digital cameras actually "underexpose" somewhat when in auto-exposure mode, just to preserve highlight detail. This makes the overall image look too dark unless you lighten up the middle tones in photoshop using the "curves" tool. Fuji has addressed this problem with the Fuji S3, which actually has two photosites for each pixel. One photosite just for recording highlight detail that would otherwise be lost. The data from the two photosites are integrated in the final file.
Film has the ability to continue to record detail in extremely overexposed areas.
zeos 386sx
Well-known
Phototone,
Thanks. If I understand you a CCD behind a contrasty lense is like transparency film. You have to expose for the highlights - with the caveat that you have to make a second exposure for the shadows. Yikes, this is the future of photography???
It sounds like the camera companies are going to have to work overtime to make CCD's with the versatility of negative film.
What kind of conditions cause "clipping"? I assume from what you have said that it would be high constrast situations - with high contrast lenses just making it worse.
What is the truth is about film v. CCD contrast/density ranges. With the zone system and controlled development film can have a broad density range. I assume from what Brian said (i.e. "The response of the CCD is linear") that CCD's are strictly limited to a built-in range. Are there other work-arounds, like Fuji's, to get contrast rendition closer to film?
Thanks. If I understand you a CCD behind a contrasty lense is like transparency film. You have to expose for the highlights - with the caveat that you have to make a second exposure for the shadows. Yikes, this is the future of photography???
It sounds like the camera companies are going to have to work overtime to make CCD's with the versatility of negative film.
What kind of conditions cause "clipping"? I assume from what you have said that it would be high constrast situations - with high contrast lenses just making it worse.
What is the truth is about film v. CCD contrast/density ranges. With the zone system and controlled development film can have a broad density range. I assume from what Brian said (i.e. "The response of the CCD is linear") that CCD's are strictly limited to a built-in range. Are there other work-arounds, like Fuji's, to get contrast rendition closer to film?
Just to add, "clipping" should also include areas of the image that are at the noise floor of the CCD.
Back in the late 1970's and early '80's I used to write a lot of FORTRAN code to calibrate images made during various experiments, from X-Ray to longwave infrared. When we transitioned from film to digital technology (using custom made sensors), the calibration moved from multiple data points fitted with higher-order polynomials to a simple two-point calibration with a linear fit. All that means that film has a lot of ability to record at the extremes of the exposure, but CCD arrays and other electronic detectors get above a certain noise floor and hust start kicking out electrons directly proportional
to how many photons hit it. On the bottom end, you get "just Noise" before it hits a threshold. When it saturates, it just stays at some peak voltage no matter how many more photons hit it. The more bits per pixel, the better to resolve the levels in between dark current and saturation. Turning up the gain, ie "dialing in a higher ISO", multiplies what is in the detector. It would be possible to make the amps and/or A/D's have a response curve in them, but I do not know if this is commonly done. At work we built a custom power meter that uses a Log Amp to get 80dB of range into a 12 bit A/D converter.
Back in the late 1970's and early '80's I used to write a lot of FORTRAN code to calibrate images made during various experiments, from X-Ray to longwave infrared. When we transitioned from film to digital technology (using custom made sensors), the calibration moved from multiple data points fitted with higher-order polynomials to a simple two-point calibration with a linear fit. All that means that film has a lot of ability to record at the extremes of the exposure, but CCD arrays and other electronic detectors get above a certain noise floor and hust start kicking out electrons directly proportional
to how many photons hit it. On the bottom end, you get "just Noise" before it hits a threshold. When it saturates, it just stays at some peak voltage no matter how many more photons hit it. The more bits per pixel, the better to resolve the levels in between dark current and saturation. Turning up the gain, ie "dialing in a higher ISO", multiplies what is in the detector. It would be possible to make the amps and/or A/D's have a response curve in them, but I do not know if this is commonly done. At work we built a custom power meter that uses a Log Amp to get 80dB of range into a 12 bit A/D converter.
Last edited: