Mario.S
Newbie
Hello. I'm going to buy my first lens. Which will be more appropriate for lets say something like Salgado's works? His photos seem to have very nice plasticity and character and I heard that collapsible summicron have both of these. On the other side nearly everyone claims that rigid/dr is the best. Have you compared them, what's your opinion? I'm curious.
ferider
Veteran
The DR/rigid is technically better, but it won't matter to your photography if you shoot people.
I suggest to make it dependent on price, the quality of the lens you get, and what handling you prefer. Watch for haze.
Welcome, of course !
Roland.
I suggest to make it dependent on price, the quality of the lens you get, and what handling you prefer. Watch for haze.
Welcome, of course !
Roland.
Last edited:
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
I have a rigid and collapsible summicron 50 (not DR). The rigid is the 4th version, one later than the DR, I think. About 1973, in any case.
The collapsible is nice, compact, and works great. I worry about torquing the barrel when extending it, but otherwise it is a fantastic lens. So is the rigid.
As Roland said, it does not make a damn bit of difference. These two are far enough apart that you can see a difference, but they are both great. The lenses from the same time? I doubt you could tell the difference (barring fog / haze / scratches).
The collapsible is nice, compact, and works great. I worry about torquing the barrel when extending it, but otherwise it is a fantastic lens. So is the rigid.
As Roland said, it does not make a damn bit of difference. These two are far enough apart that you can see a difference, but they are both great. The lenses from the same time? I doubt you could tell the difference (barring fog / haze / scratches).
Mario.S
Newbie
Thank you both. I have one more question. If the lens is technically better does it mean that it is more pleasing to the eye or there's always a trade-off? I like the photos that resemble paintings. If I'm not wrong that's a characteristic of older lenses, while the new ones look more realistic?
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
True, older lenses look different from new, but I can't speak to "resemble paintings". The newer lenses have better coatings / designs to eliminate color dispersion on the film. This does make a difference, but I don't see a major difference between my lenses.
The coating on the oldest lenses (like my collapsible) are very soft.
According to Cameraquest, Modern Photography rated the DR as having the highest resolution of any lens ever tested. I never had a complaint about either of the other ones though.
The coating on the oldest lenses (like my collapsible) are very soft.
According to Cameraquest, Modern Photography rated the DR as having the highest resolution of any lens ever tested. I never had a complaint about either of the other ones though.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Hi Mario.S, and welcome to the forum.
In general, you can speak of modern lenses and older lenses. The modern ones are a bit sharper and have more contrast, and show less flare because of modern lens coating. The older ones have lower contrast but can be sharp too... I don't think (just my perception) that Salgado's shots can be related to any kind of lens... Your photographs will be basically the same with any good lens or brand, and the lens you pick will do nothing -for your shots- that any other lens couldn't do, if you talk about sharpness... More important and real life factors are others like size or speed... A wonderful photograph through the years, decades and centuries never depends on the tool used, but on the photographer's skills and aesthetics, so those are the fields we should grow inside us, more than the equipment we use... Anyway it looks like you want a look close to pictorialism, so older, softer lenses can help a bit there... What camera will you put that lens on? A collapsible 50mm Elmar 3.5 from Leica is the classic one... It can make a very small and flat camera... And I have seen both dreamy and ultrasharp images from that lens... It's not too fast, but with modern films it's enough for most situations both on sunny and overcast days...
Cheers,
Juan
In general, you can speak of modern lenses and older lenses. The modern ones are a bit sharper and have more contrast, and show less flare because of modern lens coating. The older ones have lower contrast but can be sharp too... I don't think (just my perception) that Salgado's shots can be related to any kind of lens... Your photographs will be basically the same with any good lens or brand, and the lens you pick will do nothing -for your shots- that any other lens couldn't do, if you talk about sharpness... More important and real life factors are others like size or speed... A wonderful photograph through the years, decades and centuries never depends on the tool used, but on the photographer's skills and aesthetics, so those are the fields we should grow inside us, more than the equipment we use... Anyway it looks like you want a look close to pictorialism, so older, softer lenses can help a bit there... What camera will you put that lens on? A collapsible 50mm Elmar 3.5 from Leica is the classic one... It can make a very small and flat camera... And I have seen both dreamy and ultrasharp images from that lens... It's not too fast, but with modern films it's enough for most situations both on sunny and overcast days...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Well said.
note: I am particularly gear oriented for certain things... but I realize it is personal preference. I think now is the time to paraphrase Eddy Merckx: "Shoot lots"
note: I am particularly gear oriented for certain things... but I realize it is personal preference. I think now is the time to paraphrase Eddy Merckx: "Shoot lots"
ferider
Veteran
I agree with all said above.
However, to be more specific about the technical difference: the collapsible will be a little softer in the corners, and when closed down, not just as sharp as the DR Summicron. In print, this should only be noticable when you enlarge bigger than, say, 10x14 or more. The moderate contrast and "bokeh" are very similar, very "painterly", for both lenses.
It is very important to get a good sample, IMO. For example, paying US 400 or so for a clean (no haze) collapsible is very much worth it, IMO. It will perform better than a DR Summicron with only the slightest haze. Also, for both lenses you will need a hood, they sometimes flare when used against strong light.
Good luck and enjoy your Leica !
Roland.
However, to be more specific about the technical difference: the collapsible will be a little softer in the corners, and when closed down, not just as sharp as the DR Summicron. In print, this should only be noticable when you enlarge bigger than, say, 10x14 or more. The moderate contrast and "bokeh" are very similar, very "painterly", for both lenses.
It is very important to get a good sample, IMO. For example, paying US 400 or so for a clean (no haze) collapsible is very much worth it, IMO. It will perform better than a DR Summicron with only the slightest haze. Also, for both lenses you will need a hood, they sometimes flare when used against strong light.
Good luck and enjoy your Leica !
Roland.
Last edited:
Traut
Well-known
It always depends on the model I am photographing.
Late (SN 13x) Collapsible Summicron on the M2, wide-open, Fujicolor 200
At F4:
Type 1 Rigid Summicron, (SN 15x), on the M3.
At F4:
At F4:
Type 1 Rigid Summicron, (SN 15x), on the M3.
At F4:
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mario,
The lens will matter a LOT less than the way you see.
Forget about being Salgado. Concentrate on being Mario. Sonofdanang has summarized it perfectly.
Cheers,
R.
The lens will matter a LOT less than the way you see.
Forget about being Salgado. Concentrate on being Mario. Sonofdanang has summarized it perfectly.
Cheers,
R.