35mm signature

[Crasis]

I have no issue with the technical analysis you make. That is valid. However, if I want to know about lp/mm, MTF and OTF , microcontrast in the corners and see high quality test images shot under controlled conditions, there are plenty of publications that will satisfy my need. On this forum, however, I can take it one level further. I asked for Magus' subjective impression of the lens in use, I got an answer in his typical abstract style that wholly answered me, even illustrated, as a bonus, with a shot that illustrated how he uses the lens. Han Borger chimed in with some shots which showed me the use he makes of the lens. He was, in his first shot clearly using the idiom of the Magic Realists and was able to work the lens like a very fine brush. The other shots showed other aspects. Those answers were exactly what I was hoping for. Of course the photo's were useless as testshots, how could they be otherwise? But a picture of a tape-measure or brick wall would not have told me anything I did not know. That is the added value of this forum, and the point you missed, which Han tried to explain, albeit not very tactfully.

Actually, I wasn't making a technical analysis. Rather, I was attempting to indicate that these examples show nothing of why he determined that the 35/2 asph was superior to the 35/2 pre-asph and even noted difficulties in printing from the asph. Further, he was noting that the 35/1.4 pre-asph was a good lens but the 'test shots' or whatever proved otherwise. I'm looking at real world examples here that show.. that these individuals have cameras. Great. I've found out nothing about the lenses except that they may be able to take good photos given a good user. Maybe. The out of focus ones concern me.

Oh, of course he was using the idiom of magic realists. Great. Wonderful. Post-modernism has no forte in reality. Please keep your deconstructionism away from the thread at this time.

SOME, not all, of the photos were useless as real life examples of how the lens fares on a day to day basis. Through these photos, one must deduce that either the lenses were faulty or the users had little experience using them.

In any case, I am far more interested in what x-ray has to offer to this discussion. I'd be very interested in seeing if any of you could actually tell one lens from another given large fibre prints. I know I wouldn't be able to and that's with, I'm assuming, very good enlargements. Then again, I haven't shot thousands of rolls with my lenses yet so I haven't found all their little faults which could help me set them apart in a photo.

As x-ray says, it'd also be interesting to see if you can tell the difference between a 50mm and a 35mm lens. Sometimes, even that is not so simple. Soon you'll have a chance to talk the talk. If you can tell the difference between a pre-asph 35/2 and an asph 35/2 with 800x600 jpg files, 11x14 inch fibre should be simple, yes?

 

[jaapv]

Actually, I wasn't making a technical analysis. Rather, I was attempting to indicate that these examples show nothing of why he determined that the 35/2 asph was superior to the 35/2 pre-asph and even noted difficulties in printing from the asph. Further, he was noting that the 35/1.4 pre-asph was a good lens but the 'test shots' or whatever proved otherwise. I'm looking at real world examples here that show.. that these individuals have cameras. Great. I've found out nothing about the lenses except that they may be able to take good photos given a good user. Maybe. The out of focus ones concern me.

Oh, of course he was using the idiom of magic realists. Great. Wonderful. Post-modernism has no forte in reality. Please keep your deconstructionism away from the thread at this time.

SOME, not all, of the photos were useless as real life examples of how the lens fares on a day to day basis. Through these photos, one must deduce that either the lenses were faulty or the users had little experience using them.

In any case, I am far more interested in what x-ray has to offer to this discussion. I'd be very interested in seeing if any of you could actually tell one lens from another given large fibre prints. I know I wouldn't be able to and that's with, I'm assuming, very good enlargements. Then again, I haven't shot thousands of rolls with my lenses yet so I haven't found all their little faults which could help me set them apart in a photo.

As x-ray says, it'd also be interesting to see if you can tell the difference between a 50mm and a 35mm lens. Sometimes, even that is not so simple. Soon you'll have a chance to talk the talk. If you can tell the difference between a pre-asph 35/2 and an asph 35/2 with 800x600 jpg files, 11x14 inch fibre should be simple, yes?

Please don't be obnoxious. I find myself agreeing with Han. You really are not able to understand this thread. I tried to explain it,in a friendly way and that, I think, deserves a correct and sensible answer if you feel like contributing something. Remember, I and Han, Magus and some others were having this discusssion and we understood one another. We were talking about their subjective opinions, we were not pixel-peeping. Your approach is legitimate but beside the point has no place here, especially not in a trollish form. There are other forums where this style is the norm. You will find all kinds of technically perfect 100 % crops of crappy pictures there. If I can make you happy, I even have a photograph of a brick wall in my gallery. Unfortunately it was not taken with one of these lenses and I abstracted it in photoshop.

 

[sgy1962]

If you search the archives on the Leica board on photo.net you will find litterally dozens of comparisons between these very two lenses. It was a very hot topic back a few years.

 

[Crasis]

Please don't be obnoxious. I find myself agreeing with Han. You really are not able to understand this thread. I tried to explain it,in a friendly way and that, I think, deserves a correct and sensible answer if you feel like contributing something. Remember, I and Han, Magus and some others were having this discusssion and we understood one another. We were talking about their subjective opinions, we were not pixel-peeping. Your approach is legitimate but beside the point has no place here, especially not in a trollish form. There are other forums where this style is the norm. You will find all kinds of technically perfect 100 % crops of crappy pictures there. If I can make you happy, I even have a photograph of a brick wall in my gallery. Unfortunately it was not taken with one of these lenses and I abstracted it in photoshop.

So, you did read what magus posted right? I'll refrain from quoting snippets from this thread. Magus seems to be pixel-peeping from an optical point of view and apparently you agree with what he had to say so I'm wrong. Subjective opinions. I gave mine, didn't I? When it's subjective, everyone is right, yes? That's the way the world revolves these days.

Did I ever imply that I wanted test shots of a brick wall? I think you are ignoring both what I'm saying and what Magus has said. You know what, just for your benefit I'll post just one small thing from his large post about the various lenses: "I very much regret having gotten rid of my 35mm pre-ASPH 'lux simultaneously with purchasing my ASPH 'cron, not necessarily because I would have kept that lens (though I may have), but because it deprived me of the opportunity to take extensive comparison shots with both lenses of the same subjects under the same lighting conditions."

Dear me. I entered this discussion because it looked as bad as one on photo.net would be. A lot of expousing about one lens being sharper, contrastier, holding more detail, whatever than another lens with not a lot to back it up. In fact, my issue was with the fact that you were judging the lenses based on shots that were mis-focused.

Ah, but focus is a "[SIZE=-1]bourgeois concept" [/SIZE]to borrow a term from HCB. Yes, I know he said sharpness. Yes.. a thread with someone referring to Erwin Puts and his lens tests is certainly not supposed to be technical.

Ah, but I feel as if you're the one trolling me. My very, very first post to this thread was essentially my shock at the fact that you were all judging lenses with shots that frankly any lens could produce. There was nothing magical that stood out or anything indicative of using what is considered the best lens leica has to offer (the 35/2 asph). It pretty much looked like the quality of a 100$ used SLR at a garage sale. Yes, this shocked me. Yes, I do understand that a 100$ used SLR at a garage sale can produce the definitive photo of the millenium, but so what? Was that the point of the thread? That everyone wasted their money on expensive lenses?

Magus though, I give props for. He understands his stuff. Disagree with his conclusions about the 35/2 pre-asph but that's the way it goes. He's probably used it far more than I have and has had time to compare it to his 35/2 asph. It's too bad this thread went the way of the dogs, so to speak. I would have liked to have known why he thinks the pre-asph summilux 35 is actually better than the pre-asph summicron 35 in more detail.

Then again, this thread isn't about one lens being better than the other in any sort of objective way right? I enjoy the no fact zone.

Obviously I haven't proven myself in any capacity. I've refrained from being extra friendly just to be liked. I've ignored threads that didn't interest me for the sake of keeping them smaller. I haven't posted many photos on this forum to prove myself as an able photographer. I also don't have attacks of GAS, as you would put it.

I have also never posted on the Leica forum of photo.net as I find it quite a revolting place. I am officially giving my method of trolling a name now. I call it, 'preventing RFF from being photo.net'.

Don't feed the trolls.

 

[jaapv]

Magus though, I give props for. He understands his stuff. Disagree with his conclusions about the 35/2 pre-asph but that's the way it goes. He's probably used it far more than I have and has had time to compare it to his 35/2 asph.

So why do you think I asked for his opinion? And accepted it as valuable? Might it be to learn about a lens (or lenses) I only know about as numbers in "objective tests?"

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[KM-25]

Yesterday, I got back 33 rolls of Kodachrome from an assignment. They were shot using a Nikon FM3, 24 2.0, 45 2.8, 105 2.5, Hasselblad XPan, 30 5.6, 45 4.0, 90 4.0 and....my M6 and 35 2.0 Aspheric.

The images all look great, from full daylight to low light, some strobe fill, most not.

The Nikon images look good, but seem to lack color saturation and somewhat substantiate arguments of Kodachrome's lack of punch compared to ghastly and fake-o-matic Velvia. Of course, Kodachrome's rendition of tonal range from color to color is much better than Velvia with any camera.

The XPan images look better, the resolution and scale of color and tonal transitions are stunning.

The images from the 35 F2.0 Summicron M Aspheric make me want to sell all my Nikon gear. They are shockingly good. The sharpness, color saturation and contrast bring this film to life. The little lens makes Kodachrome look like an "Old Master's" Velvia. This is the main reason I got the the M6 and 35, to do the greatest color film ever invented some real justice.

Now...I don't know what you guys do for a living, or how much testing versus real shooting you do, but I can say with confidence that compared to my now sold and shipped 2nd generation 35, the aspheric is that much better. The bokeh is a little different, but bokeh is not why I get a medium wide lens or a Lieca lens for that matter. The reason I own Lieca, is sharpness ( especially wide open ), contrast and color saturation.

The Cron 35 Asph. is righteous in this regard and will become a primary lens in the shooting of this project, some 1,400 rolls of Kodachrome.

P.S.....I got my 50 1.4 Aspheric three days ago, I can't wait to see how that little guy does...🙂

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[adayoncedawned]

...

The images from the 35 F2.0 Summicron M Aspheric make me want to sell all my Nikon gear. They are shockingly good. The sharpness, color saturation and contrast bring this film to life. The little lens makes Kodachrome look like an "Old Master's" Velvia. This is the main reason I got the the M6 and 35, to do the greatest color film ever invented some real justice.

Now...I don't know what you guys do for a living, or how much testing versus real shooting you do, but I can say with confidence that compared to my now sold and shipped 2nd generation 35, the aspheric is that much better. The bokeh is a little different, but bokeh is not why I get a medium wide lens or a Lieca lens for that matter. The reason I own Lieca, is sharpness ( especially wide open ), contrast and color saturation

...

These paragraphs are great to read. For your intent, KM-25, I would have to say that you are using the lens for exactly the reasons it was created. It's my opinion that the ideal user for the asphericals is a photographer with a demand for saturation and contrast in colour work. Since digital has been popularized that's pretty much what contemporary media about. I mean look at anything produced by a Canon 1DSMII, that's basically the Canon signature.

It is great to read that somebody 'gets' that, as opposed to reading about black & white photographers without asph lenses who yearn for them constantly because of a general notion that they are unconditionally superior in every aspect simply because.. 'well, if that's all Leica is currently producing, then that must be the best thing for me!'

It seems to me that if black & white shooters claim to prefer the asph lenses, it is because they either aren't even making their own prints and hence never reach that really intimate knowledge of a lens's character, OR they see no fault in the increased contrast, maybe even it's what they really want. Personally, if I want more contrast I can satisfy that desire with a couple grades of contrast filters at the time of printing. What's annoying is starting with that contrast and working backwards.

This has been just a couple thoughts, definitely not wholy representative of my feelings on every facet of the pre-asph vs. asph debate but it's some of what I feel is relevant at this stage of the discussion.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[KM-25]

There is a great issue about kodachrome. It's only processed in 2(?) places in the world now. One in Japan and one in the US. This is due to the nasty chemicals required for it in that they're basically creating colour film when they process it. Anyways, I'm sure you can read up on it on your own. Regardless, I agree with km-25 that it is a gorgeous film but.. I'm impatient and I hate having to wait for the mail to get it out and get it back in for processing.

The fact that this fine film will be gone in a few years is what prompted me to do think of the project a couple years back. Thankfully, Dwayne's is fast and consistent, a very professional lab. It does not take weeks or even days, I get it back as fast the shipping I choose.

If there is one thing being a photographer has taught me, it is to be patient. I am often surprised at how folks scoff at Kodachrome's turn around time. If you commissioned an oil painter to make a piece for you, the notion of waiting weeks if not months does not faze the would be art buyer. There is a given respect to the hand done craft of sketching, mixing, painting, drying and repeating the process until it is done.

I shoot Kodachrome with care and foresight. The rewards are a photograph that ironically enough...often looks like an oil painting..🙂.

 

[Crasis]

The fact that this fine film will be gone in a few years is what prompted me to do think of the project a couple years back. Thankfully, Dwayne's is fast and consistent, a very professional lab. It does not take weeks or even days, I get it back as fast the shipping I choose.

If there is one thing being a photographer has taught me, it is to be patient. I am often surprised at how folks scoff at Kodachrome's turn around time. If you commissioned an oil painter to make a piece for you, the notion of waiting weeks if not months does not faze the would be art buyer. There is a given respect to the hand done craft of sketching, mixing, painting, drying and repeating the process until it is done.

I shoot Kodachrome with care and foresight. The rewards are a photograph that ironically enough...often looks like an oil painting..🙂.

I have shot Kodachrome. I would shoot kodachrome again. In fact I will shoot Kodachrome again before it disappears forever.

It was just my warning about it. Sending it out.. well if you live in the US or Japan.. that's fine. Elsewhere.. you have to deal with international shipping. Can you imagine that hassle? 🙁

 

[jaapv]

It was just my warning about it. Sending it out.. well if you live in the US or Japan.. that's fine. Elsewhere.. you have to deal with international shipping. Can you imagine that hassle? 🙁

Actually you don't-fortunately. You send it to the central adress in Germany or the original one in Switzerland and they deal with the hassle and return the film in about a week.

I have rediscovered this film in the last months. What I seem to notice is, that if I compare my recent slides to my 30 year old ones, the new ones seem to be sharper, have more definition and a better handling of contrast, even if I use the same lens. Is it detoriation over the years or has Kodak indeed introduced improvements? Does anybody else notice this?

 

[adayoncedawned]

Actually you dont. You send it to a central adress in germany or the original one in Switzeland and they deal with the hassle and return the film in about a week.

International means between nations, or countries. So if you are living in the Netherlands, then yes, a shipment to Germany or Switzerland is considered to be international.

Also: On June 30, 2006, Eastman Kodak announced the closure of the Lausanne Kodachrome lab, the worlds only remaining lab for Kodachrome processing owned by Eastman Kodak itself. After September 30, 2006, only Dwayne's Photo in Kansas and the Horiuchi Color Lab in Tokyo will remain: two private Kodachrome laboratories, both monitored by Kodak.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/6995/1095/1147&pq-locale=en_GB


Regarding your difference in quality, are you still using the same glass as you were 30 years ago? That makes me think of 30 years into my future... I wonder...

 

[jaapv]

International means between nations, or countries. So if you are living in the Netherlands, then yes, a shipment to Germany or Switzerland is considered to be international.

Also: On June 30, 2006, Eastman Kodak announced the closure of the Lausanne Kodachrome lab, the worlds only remaining lab for Kodachrome processing owned by Eastman Kodak itself. After September 30, 2006, only Dwayne's Photo in Kansas and the Horiuchi Color Lab in Tokyo will remain: two private Kodachrome laboratories, both monitored by Kodak.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/6995/1095/1147&pq-locale=en_GB


Regarding your difference in quality, are you still using the same glass as you were 30 years ago? That makes me think of 30 years into my future... I wonder...

Yes I have my Summaron 3.5 3.5 cm. Germany is not really international and no hassle at all.. European Union, remember...🙂 They have a Entwicklungs Sammelservice.

 

[Crasis]

I have rediscovered this film in the last months. What I seem to notice is, that if I compare my recent slides to my 30 year old ones, the new ones seem to be sharper, have more definition and a better handling of contrast, even if I use the same lens. Is it detoriation over the years or has Kodak indeed introduced improvements? Does anybody else notice this?

I have read that Kodachrome deteriorates quite rapidly if it is exposed to light and in fact, even viewing the slides will cause deterioration over time. It simply doesn't keep well unless stored in a light tight box. Nevertheless, barring contrastier modern lenses, I've no doubt that Kodachrome processing itself has improved.

Allow me to quote wikipedia: "Kodachrome is at first developed into a black and white negative and stopped but not fixed. Then the correct color dye couplers are added by performing a chemical "fogging" step, followed by development of the subtractive layers, one at a time, adding the dye couplers during each of the three individual color developments."

Although wikipedia is not always the greatest source, I have confirmed this with other sources including Kodak's own website. It's quite like creating a colour film everytime you process as opposed to having colour layered dyes already in the film itself. I bring this up for a reason; Considering how stenuous the process is and how dye couplers are added during processing, an improvement in dyes, dye addition and general developement should have improved over the course of 30 years unlike with other films where you essentially have the same developers for decades (rodinal). Also, technology has improved and their processing machines are probably far better than they were 30 years ago.

Kodachrome is quite a remarkable film but I can see why it was abandoned as it is painstaking for anyone to process.

Edit: why it is being abandoned is what I meant to say. Abandoned meaning.. well 2 places in the world as of Sept 30th/06.