35mm signature

[Mackinaw]

A few more 35mm Summicron asph shots, both wide-open at F2.0. The daylight one on Efke 25 in Rodinal, the darkened room shot on Ilford 3200 at 1600, in Xtol.

Jim Bielecki

 

[Honus]

Excellent thread, very informative and a great read. ...

Now, wouldn't it be nice if we had such a group for M-mount lenses? ... That would be a kind of treasury of photo samples for the specific mount. ... Preliminary I 'd like to see how members here feel about this idea. ... If this group is not a diagreeable prospect perhaps I can contact t a few members here who are steeped into M-mount lens history to ask for their administrative wisdom and go ahead with it. And although I am far from being a lens expert myself I am definitely willing to put the hours and help build this group.

What do you say?

Best,

Alkis - I think that this is an excellent idea. I would be happy to participate and help as I can. I can even provide some 35mm pre-asph 'cron (IV) pics for K.P. to throw darts at 😀

Feel free to PM me when you return.

- Robert

 

[Nachkebia]

I don`t even know what to say, it was nice talking with you.

 

[Crasis]

Half the shots shown are out of focus. Rather strange to use them as shots showing the power of one lens over the other. Heck, my 50 year old Pentax lenses look sharp as hell with some photoshop work. Yes.. very sharp aspherical lenses... when nothing in the image is in focus. Hah! But, whatever.

Anyways, a monitor is no way to compare lenses. They're all calibrated differently. If you say the pre-asph 35 cron is **** though, then that's that. Hopefully this thread lowers the prices of that ****ty lens. That way I can get a backup.

 

[jaapv]

Half the shots shown are out of focus. Rather strange to use them as shots showing the power of one lens over the other.

Whatever gave you the idea that this thread was a lens competition or even a lens test? The posters used their shots (and a considerable number of those shots were rather good photographs imho) to illustrate their point, not to prove it.
Having said that, you are right that one cannot compare anything either way by looking at jpegs on the internet, except for the most crass differences.
So we go by the opinions of those that have proven their worth over time.

 

[Crasis]

Whatever gave you the idea that this thread was a lens competition or even a lens test? The posters used their shots (and a considerable number of those shots were rather good photographs imho) to illustrate their point, not to prove it.
Having said that, you are right that one cannot compare anything either way by looking at jpegs on the internet, except for the most crass differences.

Throwing semantics at me? Have you actually read the thread? If I have to read between some lines, please give me a suitably high powered microscope because I can't see it. It seems to me that it's very much a "This lens is clearly a good lens" thread. Even to illustrate the point of one lens being sharper than another or better in certain conditions, what does posting an out of focus shot prove?

Not to mention Magus's detraction of the 35 cron pre-asph which surprised me since he gushes over the 35 lux pre-asph. I've not read a single recommendation for the pre-asph lux so please, back it up with shots that are IN focus.

Also, a rant about films. Delta 3200 pulled to 1600 looks like a 3 megapixel sensor and a bad black and white conversion from digital. Now I'm giving MY opinion. If you can't see it in the shots, then you won't be able to tell the difference between a 35 asph at f/8 and a 35 pre-asph at f/2.

 

[adayoncedawned]

Hmm

Hmm

I realize that I am a bit of a latecomer to the thread and that I'm digging up some of the older posts, but this is a myth that I am really interested in:

Who exactly was it that started the whole Summicron Pre-ASPH is unusable at f/2.0-2.8 thing? I mean I am presuming that it must have been someone significant, whose opinion is accepted unconditionally as fact. So, Erwin Puts? Or Mike Johnston? Anybody have any links or some kind of references to source material? I really want to see the negative reviews of this lenses wide apertures for myself.

Have any of the folks who preach and regurgitate this nonsense actually extensively used a Summicron Pre-ASPH wide open? Because to the people that have, it's a pretty funny argument to experience. And I'm not talking about just myself. I'm talking about the.. oh 5 people I know that own them who shoot them regularly wide open. I think one often overlooked skill that people need to acquire before talking down about a lens is the ability to focus them properly, by the way.

Two photos to represent my claim. 35mm Summicron IV at f/2,0.

Edit: I mistakenly attached the wrong file in the first image. The first image was shot at f/4,0. I've attached a third file, this one shot at f/2,0.

 

[jaapv]

Throwing semantics at me? Have you actually read the thread?

I think I wrote part of it....
How can you tell a 3 MP sensor on a 600x800 300 Kb shot btw?

 

[venchka]

Very good examples. I would have expected more depth of field at f:4.0. I'm glad to see the DOF is still suitably shallow at f:4.0.

 

[santino]

I had headache, lots of headache because I couldn't decide whether to go for the 35 'Cron or the Biogon. I had the opportunity to get a mint Biogon for 500$ and I can't complain. It's def. not clinical 🙂

 

[J. Borger]

I realize that I am a bit of a latecomer to the thread and that I'm digging up some of the older posts, but this is a myth that I am really interested in:

Who exactly was it that started the whole Summicron Pre-ASPH is unusable at f/2.0-2.8 thing? I mean I am presuming that it must have been someone significant.......

I have no experience with the cron iV but am a huge fan of the 35 lux pre-asph myself .......... another lens considerd unusable wide open if you believe the forums. Myths as you say ..... and i agree .... myths that get a lot of parotting by people who never actually used the lens! Before you know it is a fact😀

 

[adayoncedawned]

Very good examples. I would have expected more depth of field at f:4.0. I'm glad to see the DOF is still suitably shallow at f:4.0.

Are you certain? From the container of lens cleaner on the table to the fence behind the subject is a considerable distance.

This mistake actually demonstrates my point quite well as you can see there is not much difference in contrast and sharpness from f/2 to f/4....

 

[Crasis]

My last words before i get out of this thread are dedicated to you.
You think this thread is about sharpness?? If so ..... all i can say is your stupidity really hurts!
Yes very sharp ASPH lenses indeed..... but although i did not state it explicit in this contribution ..... i happen to prefer the pre-asph lenses in most of the circumstances ... so start reading again ....... and read carefull between the lines! You might read something to your liking ......

Ah, I'm sorry. I must have missed the pages where magus posted and everyone else agreed wholeheartedly. Silly me. Perhaps I am not as politically correct as adayoncedawned, who you agreed with. So, must I ape everyones opinion and toe the line?

Yes yes, you are all fantastic and every shot posted in this thread is fantastic, but I have an issue with the way the pre-asph cron is talked down. This is surprising to me as in this same thread, the pre-asph lux is talked up.

Is that preferrable? First, I have to hand you a golden apple on a silver platter, then only can I tell you that the apple you gave me was a bit rotten.

Magus, I do respect the fact that you've managed to print with the 35 cron asph. It is definitely an achievement as I find the pre-asph cron a bit too contrasty to print well in most sunlit situations. (This is actually not sarcasm for once) Have you found that you've actually lost any shots? The detail is there, as you say, but getting it on paper is the difficulty. Have you ever shot APX 100 with it? I can barely print APX 100, processed in rodinal 1:50 at EI 80. It's far too contrasty and if I print it down (or up? Which is it?) and lower the contrast with appropriate filtering, I lose all semblance of blacks in the image. I have worried before that I am too critical of having deep blacks and glowing whites in the same image.

As to the lux 35 shots that have been posted..

 

[Crasis]

I think I wrote part of it....
How can you tell a 3 MP sensor on a 600x800 300 Kb shot btw?

That's my entire point. People are being swayed one way or the other.. or agreeing whole heartedly for shots posted in a format that make one thing indiscernable from another. This is one of my issues.

Edit: I have decided to attach a file. This is a scan of a print, shot with Delta 400 pushed to 1600, 35/2 pre-asph at f/2.0.

I'd like to note how hideous Delta 3200 at 1600 looks in comparison. I'd also like to note that any thread in which one pontificates on the virtues of the aspherical lenses necessarily brings to bare the sharpness factor. Why else would you want aspherical lenses if it were not for sharpness, flatness of field, etc.

Well, I've heard one good argument. The pre-asph lenses are too small for larger hands to handle. That's one of the only good arguments I've heard that isn't about sharpness.

 

[Honus]

In the right hands, ANY Summicron or Summilux can produce magical results. I have the pre-asph 'cron (IV) and am quite happy with the images I get from it.

I will add a couple of f2.0 shots @ 1600 myself. These are Tri-X pushed with 100+1 Rodinal (2 hrs. stand development):

 

[x-ray]

Going back and looking at the examples posted has brought me to a conclusion of no conclusion if that make any sense. The images that I look at are not controlled and the various shots are under drastically different conditions. There's no controll standard to judge by and there are just too many variables fom shot to shot, film, scan, exposure, lighting and etc. Looking at shots like the wine glass that's lit from above on a white cloth doesn't tell me anything about the lens but tells me the glass was backlit to some degree and it was thick glass. If lit from the front it would have a totally different look as it would if lit from each side or one side. In viewing each example I see the differences more due to lighting, processing and etc. then the lens itself. OK tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but my experience tells me different. The only true test would be to shoot under controlled conditions with the same film, processing, model, lighting with the lens as the only variable. Examine the negs side by side and scan them as a single scan not individually. Scanner software and some scanners can alter each result. If there is a real visual difference it will show up in a B&W neg or slide.

Sometime this winter I'm going to make a test and hope some of you will help. I will take a number of my negs made on different cameras, lenses, makes of lenses and formats and make 11x14 museum quality arichival toned FB prints and send them to a person on the forum that would like to tell me what they were shot with. That person will have to send them to the next and so on. I will only number the back and post jpg's on the forum. After a few weeks of sharing I will post the results. Atleast tell me if it's 35mm or larger, leica or other glass. I hear some forum members can spot a leica image from across a room. Subjects will be different and the film / developer might be different. The images might be all leica or none may be. I want to see if I'm blind or if the "glow", "clinical look", Leica look and etc. are real or not. Anyone up for a real test?

 

[Crasis]

Going back and looking at the examples posted has brought me to a conclusion of no conclusion if that make any sense. The images that I look at are not controlled and the various shots are under drastically different conditions. There's no controll standard to judge by and there are just too many variables fom shot to shot, film, scan, exposure, lighting and etc. Looking at shots like the wine glass that's lit from above on a white cloth doesn't tell me anything about the lens but tells me the glass was backlit to some degree and it was thick glass. If lit from the front it would have a totally different look as it would if lit from each side or one side. In viewing each example I see the differences more due to lighting, processing and etc. then the lens itself. OK tell me I don't know what I'm talking about but my experience tells me different. The only true test would be to shoot under controlled conditions with the same film, processing, model, lighting with the lens as the only variable. Examine the negs side by side and scan them as a single scan not individually. Scanner software and some scanners can alter each result. If there is a real visual difference it will show up in a B&W neg or slide.

Sometime this winter I'm going to make a test and hope some of you will help. I will take a number of my negs made on different cameras, lenses, makes of lenses and formats and make 11x14 museum quality arichival toned FB prints and send them to a person on the forum that would like to tell me what they were shot with. That person will have to send them to the next and so on. I will only number the back and post jpg's on the forum. After a few weeks of sharing I will post the results. Atleast tell me if it's 35mm or larger, leica or other glass. I hear some forum members can spot a leica image from across a room. Subjects will be different and the film / developer might be different. The images might be all leica or none may be. I want to see if I'm blind or if the "glow", "clinical look", Leica look and etc. are real or not. Anyone up for a real test?

I'm up for it, and you've stated it well. If you're willing to put in the effort, I'll be willing to put in the rather minor effort of examining the prints and shipping them off.

 

[x-ray]

Give me untill November and it's a go. I'm in the commercial busy season at the moment and November usually slows a bit.

I don't want to sound like I don't believe there are differences in lenses because I know there are but mainly from brand to brand and most noticable in color. For example my Schneider view lenses ar much cooler in color, actually neutral, than my red dot artars which are generally warm in comparison. Years back I think there were certainly differences in 35mm lenses but more in edge sharpness, flare resistance and color rendition. In the past forty years lenses have come a long way and are very close to equal in real world performance, not bench tests. I heard people say that anything that's not Leica is flat and dull particularly Canon and Nikon. I think my test will show this is wrong. Why I say this I've started printing seventy to eighty negs for an upcoming museum show. The time span is over forty years and the cameras and lenses range from Leica 60's vintage to present asph plus many Nikon, Canon, Zeiss MF and Schneider LF images. These have been my best prints that I have ever produced but to be honest I could not tell what was shot with what if I hadn't taken the images myself. Some of them I can't remember what I shot them on and can't tell by looking. The only one I can tell was shot with my olf canon FD 20mm. It just wasn't sharp at the edges but other than that I can't tell. I may not be as sharp as some of the readers here and want to see if I'm full of B$.

If anyone on the forum is in the Fort Collins area you can see a couple of my best prints in the upcoming October show at the Center for Fine Art Photography. One is Rollei SL66 / 150 Sonnar and TXP and the other is a very good example of a 35mm summilux v1 with Tri-X and 10% sulfite modified 1:100 Rodinal.

 

[venchka]

Are you certain? From the container of lens cleaner on the table to the fence behind the subject is a considerable distance.

This mistake actually demonstrates my point quite well as you can see there is not much difference in contrast and sharpness from f/2 to f/4....

I guess what I really meant was that there is still foreground and background out of focus. If I had a 35mm lens handy, I could have looked at the DOF scale and figured out what it was at f:4. I also meant that was a good thing.

 

[jaapv]

That's my entire point. People are being swayed one way or the other.. or agreeing whole heartedly for shots posted in a format that make one thing indiscernable from another. This is one of my issues.

Edit: I have decided to attach a file. This is a scan of a print, shot with Delta 400 pushed to 1600, 35/2 pre-asph at f/2.0.

I'd like to note how hideous Delta 3200 at 1600 looks in comparison. I'd also like to note that any thread in which one pontificates on the virtues of the aspherical lenses necessarily brings to bare the sharpness factor. Why else would you want aspherical lenses if it were not for sharpness, flatness of field, etc.

Well, I've heard one good argument. The pre-asph lenses are too small for larger hands to handle. That's one of the only good arguments I've heard that isn't about sharpness.

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.