spencewine
Member
I always know which image was shot with my Zeiss 21mm biogon because my eyes start to bleed when looking at it.
Can you see the difference between your Zeiss and Leica photos? Going mad...
- Thread starter John5
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 28
- Views 3K
Turtle
Veteran
Not a huge amount. I can tell my CV 21 from my ZM 21 by looking to the extreme corners, but sometimes sharp corners are not that desirable. The difference is small stopped down but obvious at f4. I can tell my 24 lux from my 21 Biogon at medium apertures because there is a different look somehow - the Leica is less clinical somehow. My 35 Summarit is somehow softer and smoother than the biogon, although their resolution is essentially the same.... but as Roger says, once they are all on the wall or part of a project, differences vanish. I have been shooting a long term project over the years and have used the following lenses and you know what? It does not matter much. They all work well together and you do not feel and real change in lens type. I have sold a few or put them on the shelf, opting for something that has more speed, handling I prefer, smaller, larger... whatever I feel like.
CV 21 P
ZM 21 2.8
Leica 24 Lux
ZM 28
ZM 35 f2
Leica 35 Summarit-M
ZM 50 Planar
Canon 85 1.2 L
Mamiya 50mm
Mamiya 65mm
Mamiya 80mm
Xpan 45mm
I have shot on:
Foma 100
Foma 200
FP4+
Delta 100
Neopan 400
TriX
D3200
Neopan 1600
I have developed in:
Xtol 1+1 to 1+3
DDX 1+4 to 1+7
Rodinal
Rodinal and Xtol...
The thing that really links the images together is the person who shot them - a style... and the printing of course. These things overwhelm lens differences. I think the decision to shoot FP4+ or D100 is bigger in some respects over signature differences between most modern lenses.
CV 21 P
ZM 21 2.8
Leica 24 Lux
ZM 28
ZM 35 f2
Leica 35 Summarit-M
ZM 50 Planar
Canon 85 1.2 L
Mamiya 50mm
Mamiya 65mm
Mamiya 80mm
Xpan 45mm
I have shot on:
Foma 100
Foma 200
FP4+
Delta 100
Neopan 400
TriX
D3200
Neopan 1600
I have developed in:
Xtol 1+1 to 1+3
DDX 1+4 to 1+7
Rodinal
Rodinal and Xtol...
The thing that really links the images together is the person who shot them - a style... and the printing of course. These things overwhelm lens differences. I think the decision to shoot FP4+ or D100 is bigger in some respects over signature differences between most modern lenses.
Nick De Marco
Well-known
Good point Turtle
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hmmm, I think the answer to the question is another question or two.
So are we talking prints or slides? Do you use a tripod all the time? Have you a colour meter and a set of balancing filters?
If prints then what size and will you do everything yourself the old fashioned way or go to a lab? My experience is that even slides vary slightly, more than the lens does. But no one has mentioned colour meters or whatever you measure the whites with, nor correction filters etc: this brings in a variable. So does the lenses & bulb in the projector and the screen...
As for prints, talk to people in labs and they'll usually say (well, mine do) that they print thousands of 4 x 6 (sigh), nowhere near as many 5x7 and a few a bit bigger. Get seriously big and you'll notice the difference. But the difference I notice is who printed them. I can always pick out the technician sitting at the machine by looking at the prints.
Others have said that the differences in normal prints at normal apertures are non existent and I'll go along with them. And I can equal the M2's output with my wife's elderly 3 megapixel P&S. Even B&W up to about A5 size.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. From about 1945 or so when coatings appeared they've all been better than most people will ever need.
You should also be thinking about a set of lenses (very expensive) and not just one.
The only ones with signatures I notice are the 30's ones like the Summar and the 9cm & 3,5cm Elmars. All the rest from the uncoated Summitar onwards are just plain old fashioned good.
BTW, by the time the photo has gone from a negative to a scanned print and then the print is scanned and loaded on to a website - where more software deals with it - it is far from pure and is very third or forth generation. So it's not the place to look for signatures.
Sorry, I seem to have ranted on more than usual. I'll go and lie down for a while.
Regards, David
So are we talking prints or slides? Do you use a tripod all the time? Have you a colour meter and a set of balancing filters?
If prints then what size and will you do everything yourself the old fashioned way or go to a lab? My experience is that even slides vary slightly, more than the lens does. But no one has mentioned colour meters or whatever you measure the whites with, nor correction filters etc: this brings in a variable. So does the lenses & bulb in the projector and the screen...
As for prints, talk to people in labs and they'll usually say (well, mine do) that they print thousands of 4 x 6 (sigh), nowhere near as many 5x7 and a few a bit bigger. Get seriously big and you'll notice the difference. But the difference I notice is who printed them. I can always pick out the technician sitting at the machine by looking at the prints.
Others have said that the differences in normal prints at normal apertures are non existent and I'll go along with them. And I can equal the M2's output with my wife's elderly 3 megapixel P&S. Even B&W up to about A5 size.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. From about 1945 or so when coatings appeared they've all been better than most people will ever need.
You should also be thinking about a set of lenses (very expensive) and not just one.
The only ones with signatures I notice are the 30's ones like the Summar and the 9cm & 3,5cm Elmars. All the rest from the uncoated Summitar onwards are just plain old fashioned good.
BTW, by the time the photo has gone from a negative to a scanned print and then the print is scanned and loaded on to a website - where more software deals with it - it is far from pure and is very third or forth generation. So it's not the place to look for signatures.
Sorry, I seem to have ranted on more than usual. I'll go and lie down for a while.
Regards, David
Paul Luscher
Well-known
Hey, they're both good lenses.
I always love those folks who go on and on about the characteristics of this lens vs. that lens. They remind me of wine snobs: "Well, the Chateau de Frass is a full-bodied wine with a fine bouquet, and tastes of a fruity essence with oaken overtones..."
I must be a Philistine, because generally, I don't see all the "nuances" these people see. I see some differences--usually bokeh, but I generally don't see
"slightly softer and less contrasty in the center as opposed to the edge, with a slight pincushion distortion..."
I figure most top-drawer camera lenses aren't all that much different from each other. And anyway, I'd worry less about which lens, and more about "well, is that photo really any good?"
I always love those folks who go on and on about the characteristics of this lens vs. that lens. They remind me of wine snobs: "Well, the Chateau de Frass is a full-bodied wine with a fine bouquet, and tastes of a fruity essence with oaken overtones..."
I must be a Philistine, because generally, I don't see all the "nuances" these people see. I see some differences--usually bokeh, but I generally don't see
"slightly softer and less contrasty in the center as opposed to the edge, with a slight pincushion distortion..."
I figure most top-drawer camera lenses aren't all that much different from each other. And anyway, I'd worry less about which lens, and more about "well, is that photo really any good?"
ferider
Veteran
In case of doubt, get the one that's better built and will hold through 20 years of use. Meaning the Summicron.
The rigid/DR Summicron is a super-star of a lens. If there is one Leica cult lens, that's it, and for good reason. Watch for haze.
The rigid/DR Summicron is a super-star of a lens. If there is one Leica cult lens, that's it, and for good reason. Watch for haze.
John5
Newbie
Thank you all for the input and sharing your knowledge. I decided I'll go with summicron. Even If I can't see the difference it will be in my head.
Is it the rule that rigid summicron is better for b&w than the current one?
Thanks,
John
Is it the rule that rigid summicron is better for b&w than the current one?
Thanks,
John
ferider
Veteran
No, John, not really, just different. The current one is sharper in the corners, in particular wide open, and has a bit more contrast. Also, min. focus is 0.7m, while the rigid is 1m. The rigid Summicron has very high center resolution, and to my eyes nicer OOF rendering.
The rigid Summicron is optically identical to the Dual Range. The Dual Range can be focused down to half meter with the accessory googles.
Here is a typical DR picture; just a dog pic, but you can see what the 50 year old Summicron does (on Rollei Retro 100 - the vertical lines in the background is a fence):
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
Steve M.
Veteran
Trust me, NOTHING is superior to a Leica Summicron, rigid or otherwise. The Rigid, a clean collapsible, or a DR will be lenses that you will have to live up to, rather than the other way around. Even the lowly Summar, if you understand it's limitations, will give you fantastic photos. You just have to take care that you get a clean one, or budget in $100 for a CLA. After many years and many cameras it finally was clear to me: only Leica glass has that mojo (in 35mm).
These are from my 1938 Summar.
These are from my 1938 Summar.
Similar threads
