Leica LTM A "Character" 35mm LTM Lens

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Erik van Straten said:
But Jon, its character is that it hasn't any distinct character. That is a great character - for a lens.



Erik.
Click to expand...

Erik, so to sum up, the Ultron's distinct lack of distinct character is its distinct character? It's exactly not what the OP is looking for, but its very Zen of you, Erik, very Zen ;)


bayernfan said:
The responses thus far have been very entertaining. Perhaps some clarification is in order.

The lenses I cited initially (Summar, Summitar, Jupiter, Sonnar) have a distinctive look at wider apertures that could be described as a departure (deviation) from the real scene. Glow and swirl are the best words I can conjure to describe these attributes. As mentioned above, the aberrations of older LTM-era lenses are what give way to this look.

Is there, for example, a 35mm lens that creates images with the "character" of a wide open Sonnar 50/1.5?
Click to expand...

The W-Nikkor 35/1.8 and 35/2.5 do swirl under the right circumstances.

This is the W-Nikkor 35/1.8 reissue, which is pretty much identical to the vintage version in terms of swirl. Images take from goliathus's posts here.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
jonmanjiro said:
Erik, so to sum up, the Ultron's distinct lack of distinct character is its distinct character? It's exactly not what the OP is looking for, but its very Zen of you, Erik, very Zen ;)



The W-Nikkor 35/1.8 and 35/2.5 do swirl under the right circumstances.

This is the W-Nikkor 35/1.8 reissue, which is pretty much identical to the vintage version in terms of swirl. Images take from goliathus's posts here.

attachment.php


attachment.php
Click to expand...

The back and forth between you and Erik has been the highlight of my day.

Thank you Jon for the images. If the Nikkor 35/2.5 is similar in rendering, I may have to source one. The Nikkor 35/1.8 is more than I want to spend. :)
 
rfaspen said:
I understood the initial inquiry. Character as in Petzval character :cool:

I don't know of a 35 with swirly bokeh, but that kind of character is usually related to low correction of one or more optical abberations.

I wonder what MS-Optical has in that focal length? I know I've seen example images from the Apoqualia 35/1.4 but I can't recall if there was any "character". Maybe track down some images from that and see.

The only 35 I own that has a "look" I can distinguish from my other 35's is the Summaron 35/2.8. I truly love the images I can get with that lens. Mine is the RF version with goggles -- great for my M3 (not working), but klunky for all my other M's. Thus, I don't use it near as much as I would if it were non-goggled. I'll probably get the non-goggled version of this lens eventually.

The 35 that I don't own, but like the images I've seen from it: the Nikkor 35/1.8 that has already been mentioned a few times above. I guess I noticed its unique look too. A little spendy for me when I already have so many other 35's. But, if someone has one they need to get rid of......:)
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm glad you mentioned MS-Optics. I own and use the 35/3.5 Perar, and it is a great M-mount lens. However, I would not classify it as an 'old-school character' lens. I'll do a bit more research on the Apoqualia 35/1.4.
 
Don’t underestimate the Nikkor 2.5. I had a perfect Summaron 2.8 and decided to keep the Nikkor (obtained from @jonmanjiro) as the renderings were nearly indistinguishable from each other. The Summaron being worth a lot more made for an easy decision although the ergonomics and common filter of the Summaron are much preferred.
 
bayernfan said:
The back and forth between you and Erik has been the highlight of my day.

Thank you Jon for the images. If the Nikkor 35/2.5 is similar in rendering, I may have to source one. The Nikkor 35/1.8 is more than I want to spend. :)
Click to expand...

Highlight of your day? I think you need to get out more! Hehe just kidding, glad you found it entertaining ;)

The W-Nikkor 35/2.5 does indeed swirl just like its faster sibling. I have a good example photo somewhere, but couldn’t find it before leaving for work this morning. Will post it if I can locate it tonight!
 
I can't claim to have shot a lot of vintage 35mm lenses, but I'd also vote for the Canon 35/1.8. It has a less contrasty look than the more "modern" 35/2.0 (which I still have and shoot all the time). It's pretty soft wide open and flares like crazy when you point it at a light sort (think: window), but it gives color film a more desaturated look that can be quite lovely. I also think the Canon 35/2.8 is a nice lens in the lower contrast dept, though I prefer the Summaron 35/3.5.
 
I have a canon 35mm 2.8 LTM that I rarely use ( I have too much stuff) that is the smallest 35mm I’ve ever used aside from the Elmar 35mm. If it’s something you’d be interested in, PM me. I don’t have any LTM cameras so I usually use a Summaron 2.8 or Cron vIII.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Jupiter 12 is a 35mm with character in the flawed sense. A friend has a decent copy which produced decent images.
Click to expand...

If you mean the distortion and corners etc, it may not be perfect and it is prone to flare but it is a nice lens when controlled. I bought this lens for 6 bucks in Kazakhstan in an antique shop :)

p.s. I think the light at upper left and right corners are due to light leak in my leica iiif.

U25431I1480796071.SEQ.1.jpg

U25431I1480796073.SEQ.3.jpg

U25431I1480796074.SEQ.4.jpg
 
maddoc said:
What is "nuclear hardening" ? :confused::eek: Anything that I could teach my students in chemistry?
Click to expand...

I assume it's what people call the yellowing of the tree sap aka. Canada balsam holding the cemented lens elements together.

I am not sure if the radioactivity of the thorinated element plays any role in the yellowing as I've seen plenty of (especially Russian made) lenses without radioactive elements that have severely yellowed. My personal theory is more along the lines of the purity of the original Canada balsam as well as heat being prime contributors to the yellowing.
 
Bingley said:
I can't claim to have shot a lot of vintage 35mm lenses, but I'd also vote for the Canon 35/1.8. It has a less contrasty look than the more "modern" 35/2.0 (which I still have and shoot all the time). It's pretty soft wide open and flares like crazy when you point it at a light sort (think: window), but it gives color film a more desaturated look that can be quite lovely. I also think the Canon 35/2.8 is a nice lens in the lower contrast dept, though I prefer the Summaron 35/3.5.
Click to expand...

Another vote for the Canon 35/2.8 (colour) and the Summaron 35/3.5 (overall).
 
Yes, the Summaron 35mm f/3.5 is good. Less character but more quality than the Summaron f/2.8.

Leica M5, Summaron 35mm f/3.5 (M-mount), 400-2TMY, printed on Adox MCC 110.

Erik.

47762006482_2ac0e6eae0_b.jpg
 
maddoc said:
What is "nuclear hardening" ? :confused::eek: Anything that I could teach my students in chemistry?
Click to expand...

M,

Back when I worked in research labs at Grumman they had a Cobalt irradiator. The idea was to simulate conditions in outer space and for testing space based electronics.

So if you took a piece of clear glass and put it in the irradiator pretty much the clear glass would become a dark brown with just a few minutes of this intense irradiation. The idea here was to simulate the accumulated effects of radiation bombardment of years/decades in a shorter amount of time for failure for electronics. Pretty much destructive testing.

My 35/1.8 Nikkor is just mildly radioactive. I believe the rare earth element used in the glass is Thorium. At my Cyclotron lab I have a geiger counter and it still is radioactive, but at a very low level.

The same damage that caused the clear glass to become brown is in effect, but at much lower levels and over an extended period of time. The glass in my 35/1.8 is tinted a slight yellow (about half an F-stop filter factor).

I use the term "Nuclear Hardening" from those days back in Grumman because basically space electronics have to last in a hostile envionment.

When used on a color digital camera you might notice a slight yellow tint.

Cal
 
bayernfan said:
What about the 35mm focal length?

The Summaron 35/3.5 certainly is not (I own one).

The Elmar 35/3.5 is low contrast wide open, but doesn't have a particularly special look (I also own this onel).
Click to expand...

Folks, the OP already owns a Summaron 35/3.5 and Elmar 35/3.5
wink.gif


jonmanjiro said:
The W-Nikkor 35/2.5 does indeed swirl just like its faster sibling. I have a good example photo somewhere, but couldn’t find it before leaving for work this morning. Will post it if I can locate it tonight!
Click to expand...

Found it! This first shot was taken with a W-Nikkor 35/2.5 on slide film (no idea what the film is now...).
32918159737_b902252791_b.jpg


This is the vintage W-Nikkor 35/1.8 - same roll.
32918159847_498568fff8_b.jpg


And this is the reissue W-Nikkor 35/1.8 - same roll.
46946146255_dd312cc3ab_b.jpg
 
jonmanjiro said:
Folks, the OP already owns a Summaron 35/3.5 and Elmar 35/3.5 ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, Jon. Perhaps the OP should give both lenses another try. We only can judge for ourselves. And the definition of what "character" is ... alas, you should start a new thread, I suppose. Finally, everybody can only judge from the number of lenses he/she owns or once owned. Apart from the two lenses I favoured (LTM) there is a Canon 35/2 which I also like but it has less "character" and - as stated above - a more modern look.
 
Several members have posted terrific images (thanks Helen, Erik, etc), and I'm glad they did because they showcase what I would consider to be a well-corrected "classic" look. This is the look I like for the majority of my photography, and the reason I own many of the lenses suggested or recommended.

I think Jon understood that I was seeking something with a particularly individual "look". Not a total mess like a Petzval, but something with enough imperfection to be recognizable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom