Best "vintage look" rangefinder lenses of all time

What are the best rangefinder lenses (Leica, Canon,Voigtlander, Nikon, Zeiss etc.) for capturing images with the vintage look? Some are well known classics ;others are great buys you might not have thought of. I welcome your nominations and I'll be happy to share my own. Just ask the professor-

 

[markjwyatt]

My choice would be either the Zeiss Biogon 35/2.8 or the Zeiss Opton Sonnar 50/1.5.

pre-war, post-war, or either?

 

[Erik van Straten]

Erik: In the "other RFF thread" on the replica Cron, the replica shows more sharpness in the background than the sharpness shown by the Cron.

Yes, I saw that too.

That can be example variation. These are hand built lenses. In fact every single lens is different from the others. As long as this is within the permitted deviations there is no problem.

When making lenses, testing and quality control are most important. This is an important but cost-increasing step.

Erik.

 

[markjwyatt]

Maybe that is the vintage photographer look

Lot of people will react that way to anything in B&W.

 

[Wouter2]

I love that one too!

Leica MP/Elmar 35mm f/3.5 nickel uncoated/TMY2-400/AdoxMCC110

Erik.

Now this is what I call an interesting image! Lots of geometrical juxtaposition.

 

[CMur12]

From Rich C: "I essentially say the same thing as Jason: vintage lenses 'create low-contrast images where the tonal gradation rolls off gently into the highlights and shadows, and the midtones dominate'."

When I think of vintage B&W, the combination of Verichrome Pan and a simple box camera come to mind, which neatly fits this description.

- Murray

 

[Greyscale]

pre-war, post-war, or either?

Early post-war for the Biogon, the Opton Sonnar is postwar by definition.

 

[kiemchacsu]

What are the best rangefinder lenses (Leica, Canon,Voigtlander, Nikon, Zeiss etc.) for capturing images with the vintage look? Some are well known classics ;others are great buys you might not have thought of. I welcome your nominations and I'll be happy to share my own. Just ask the professor-

among the lenses i have used, the summicron 50/2 collapsible stands out because of it special way of rendering objects.

let us know your choice.
thanks.

 

[retinax]

For me, its lenses that create low-contrast images where the tonal gradation rolls off gently into the highlights and shadows, and the midtones dominate. These are invariably older lenses, designed in the 70s and earlier.

This is in opposition to modern lenses, which produce a high-contrast look: tonal transitions are abrupt, so highlights are bright and shadows are black. I find the images harsh and "clinical", often lacking the emotion of older lenses.

This emotional effect helps me to create photographs that evoke a feeling and aids story-telling.

It's been suggested that the preference for high-contrast lenses came from Japan, and began to dominate with the decline of the European and American camera industries. Undoubtedly, technological advances such as computers and better lens coatings played their role too.

The low tonality of old is essentially a flaw - it's merely flare. However, virtuoso lens designers such as Mandler at Leica could tame aberrations and make them work with image-making rather than against it.

Of course, being old does not make a lens good! So, although it may be self-evident, I expect a lens to be sharp. A classic lens for me therefore has the twin qualities of low contrast and high resolution.

The writer and photographer Sean Reid coined a name for these classic optics many years ago, calling them "sunny day lenses". Here's an article where he describes these lenses in more detail: the entire article is worth reading, but if you want to stay with our topic, scroll two-thirds down the page to the "Sunny day lenses" heading. https://luminous-landscape.com/fast-lenses-for-the-epson-r-d1/

By the way, I couldn't care less about bokeh, provided it's not excessively weird or intrusive. Some older lens designs have "interesting" bokeh. For me, that's an "Oh, that's, err... interesting!" reaction – but some people love "swirly" circular bokeh!

I agree with the general direction of this.
Of course vintage lenses tend to have inherently lower contrast and often more aberrations than modern ones, but IMHO that's all there is to it, so no need for flowery language and no way to find the "best" one, because the low contrast can be achieved in many ways and the aberrations are all different and a matter of taste.
I don't see how a lens could make abrupt tonal transitions. Like the gaps in the histogram when you try to expend contrast in a Jpeg? They merely have less flare, leading to higher contrast. Flare only has an effect on the shadows (or up to the midtones if it's strong), I have yet to read an explanation how it it supposed to have noticeable effect on the highlights.
Flare sure can be charming, the issue for me is that it introduces so much difference in contrast between images taken against the light and with the light. I'd prefer if all lenses could be had with no flare but all the character otherwise, I have other means to lower contrast.

 

[CharlesDAMorgan]

Certainly for that "vintage" look you could use Retropan (a Foma film). I took some photos of a boat a friend had helped restore, a WW2 target towing boat. I have boosted contrast in post, and this was with that well known non-vintage lens, the Zeiss C Biogon 35mm f2.8.

I have to say I hated the film so much, I've never used it again, but it's certainly cheaper than a lens...

 

[Bingley]

I agree with a lot of the suggestions here, including the Elmars and (older) Canon rf lenses. One lens that hasn't been mentioned (perhaps bc it's not a vintage lens) is the CV Skopar 50/2.5 LTM. Although the lens has a reputation for being contrasty, it's possible to achieve a vintage look with it with the right film and developing.

London by bingley0522, on Flickr

Stockholm by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

Now this is what I call an interesting image! Lots of geometrical juxtaposition.

Thank you, Wouter, did you see that the old hotel looks like a skull? Really spooky.

Unfortunately, all this has now been discontinued.

Erik.

 

[Bingley]

My favorite lens for achieving a vintage look, though, is the Leitz Summitar, in both coated and uncoated versions.

Coated:

Keizersgracht by bingley0522, on Flickr

Winter Light by bingley0522, on Flickr

Uncoated:

Ocean Beach by bingley0522, on Flickr

Balboa Street by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Jason Schneider]

For me, its lenses that create low-contrast images where the tonal gradation rolls off gently into the highlights and shadows, and the midtones dominate. These are invariably older lenses, designed in the 70s and earlier.

This is in opposition to modern lenses, which produce a high-contrast look: tonal transitions are abrupt, so highlights are bright and shadows are black. I find the images harsh and "clinical", often lacking the emotion of older lenses.

This emotional effect helps me to create photographs that evoke a feeling and aids story-telling.

It's been suggested that the preference for high-contrast lenses came from Japan, and began to dominate with the decline of the European and American camera industries. Undoubtedly, technological advances such as computers and better lens coatings played their role too.

The low tonality of old is essentially a flaw - it's merely flare. However, virtuoso lens designers such as Mandler at Leica could tame aberrations and make them work with image-making rather than against it.

Of course, being old does not make a lens good! So, although it may be self-evident, I expect a lens to be sharp. A classic lens for me therefore has the twin qualities of low contrast and high resolution.

The writer and photographer Sean Reid coined a name for these classic optics many years ago, calling them "sunny day lenses". Here's an article where he describes these lenses in more detail: the entire article is worth reading, but if you want to stay with our topic, scroll two-thirds down the page to the "Sunny day lenses" heading. https://luminous-landscape.com/fast-lenses-for-the-epson-r-d1/

By the way, I couldn't care less about bokeh, provided it's not excessively weird or intrusive. Some older lens designs have "interesting" bokeh. For me, that's an "Oh, that's, err... interesting!" reaction – but some people love "swirly" circular bokeh!

I agree with many of your observations, but I believe that smooth rather than abrupt tonal gradations and a rounded 3-dimensional rendition of subjects and objects in space are more definitive characteristics of Vintage Look lenses than a combination of low contrast and high resolution. Some classic Vintage Look lenses do indeed have low contrast and high resolution, but others are quite contrasty and may or may not deliver high resolution. The legendary (and expensive!) 50mm f/2.5 Leitz Hektor (uncoated) is notoriously soft wide open off axis, and low in contrast, but it's a superb Vintage Look lens. Also I don't think the Japanese alone initiated the trend toward high contrast lenses. Around 50 years ago Leitz came out with the 6-element version of the 50mm f/2 Summicron-M, a design that clearly favored high contrast over high resolution. All 50mm f/2 Summicron-M lenses are capable of capturing the Vintage Look to some extent, by my favorites are the old 7-element version (rigid or collapsible) and the Dual-Range Summicron.

 

[Erik van Straten]

The legendary (and expensive!) 50mm f/2.5 Leitz Hektor (uncoated) is notoriously soft wide open off axis, and low in contrast, but it's a superb Vintage Look lens.

This lens is one of my favorites too. These are shot with a Hektor 50mm f/2.5 on a Leica II (1932) on Tmax400 film, printed on AdoxMCC110.

Erik.

 

[p.giannakis]

Great pictures Erik - where/when were they taken?

 

[Jason Schneider]

Late model f/2.5 (and f/2.4) Summarits rock!

Late model f/2.5 (and f/2.4) Summarits rock!

For me, its lenses that create low-contrast images where the tonal gradation rolls off gently into the highlights and shadows, and the midtones dominate. These are invariably older lenses, designed in the 70s and earlier.

This is in opposition to modern lenses, which produce a high-contrast look: tonal transitions are abrupt, so highlights are bright and shadows are black. I find the images harsh and "clinical", often lacking the emotion of older lenses.

This emotional effect helps me to create photographs that evoke a feeling and aids story-telling.

It's been suggested that the preference for high-contrast lenses came from Japan, and began to dominate with the decline of the European and American camera industries. Undoubtedly, technological advances such as computers and better lens coatings played their role too.

The low tonality of old is essentially a flaw - it's merely flare. However, virtuoso lens designers such as Mandler at Leica could tame aberrations and make them work with image-making rather than against it.

Of course, being old does not make a lens good! So, although it may be self-evident, I expect a lens to be sharp. A classic lens for me therefore has the twin qualities of low contrast and high resolution.

The writer and photographer Sean Reid coined a name for these classic optics many years ago, calling them "sunny day lenses". Here's an article where he describes these lenses in more detail: the entire article is worth reading, but if you want to stay with our topic, scroll two-thirds down the page to the "Sunny day lenses" heading. https://luminous-landscape.com/fast-lenses-for-the-epson-r-d1/

By the way, I couldn't care less about bokeh, provided it's not excessively weird or intrusive. Some older lens designs have "interesting" bokeh. For me, that's an "Oh, that's, err... interesting!" reaction – but some people love "swirly" circular bokeh!

All I have to do is to take images with Summarit-M 35 2.5 ASPH on M4-2 and with Ilford HP5+, develop them in HC-110 and print in DR.
Many people who have looked at those prints are saying - "it feels like it was taken decades ago".

Sorry to burst gearheads bubble here.

Yes! Those late model f/2.5 Summarits were designed as (relatively) inexpensive alternatives for Leica-M shooters, but they're traditional designs that use spherical section elements (no aspherics) have beautiful bokeh, and can definitely capture that Vintage Look. The 35mm, 75mm, and 90mm f/2.5 Summarits (discontinued) beautiful lenses and so is the current Summarit 90mm f/2.4.

 

[Erik van Straten]

Great pictures Erik - where/when were they taken?

Thank you, Pan, they were shot in Belarus in 2001 in Babruisk, Belarus.


Erik.

 

[markjwyatt]

wrong thread...

 

[kiemchacsu]

I think I am lucky enough to have both the 35/2 v4 and the 35/2.8

Everybody swoons over the 4th (Non-ASPH) version of the 35mm f/2 Summicron but the 35mm f/2.8 Summaron is a very sharp lens with beautiful bokeh and gorgeous vintage rendition.

 

[telenous]

The champion of vintage lenses must be the humble Elmar 50/3.5 in its many variations. The lens was made at a time when flare was optically difficult to suppress but the very modest aperture mitigated some of the design challenges. The simple construction, attractive price, and long production history meant that the Elmar 50/3.5 sold by the boatload and was used for the making of numerous photos. Thus, accidentally, the Elmar 50/3.5 pretty much defines our contemporary expectations of the so-called "vintage-look". When it comes to wider angle lenses the Summaron 35/2.8, 35/3.5 and the Elmar 35/3.5 occupy a similar position for the same reasons.

A little more specialized but too obvious to omit is the Summarit 50/1.5. It is an extremely weak lens design, one that Leitz shouldn't have produced but did due to commercial pressure from Zeiss' Sonnar lenses. It benefits enormously from closing down but at smaller apertures it musters the optical "strength" to provide for consistent and appealing imagery. The photographs are "sharp enough" but always maintain a hint of flare ("glow"!) that we as viewers associate with older lenses, photographs and movies.

The two Zeiss Sonnars (and their clones) are also very particular. They suppress flare a whole lot better than the contemporaneous Leitz lenses but still have a very distinctive, very recognizable imprint.

The introduction of the rigid/DR Summicron 50mm ushered Leitz in the later era of optical design. With it they succeeded in controlling better (but still far from fully) unwanted optical artifacts in lenses with a wider aperture. It was good news for legions of photographers incessantly closing down their lenses. Available light photography became easier, documentary photography at night without a tripod became possible. But with the bad, gone was the not-so-bad too, i.e. the impressionistic "fingerprint" that defined early, small-format photography. Also gone was, sadly perhaps, a certain reminder that portable cameras were not meant to describe accurately but rather fleetingly and, dare I say, "emotionally".