Do we really need to buy newer Leica lenses?

[quadtones]

Simply stated, the 35mm v4 Summicron I purchased used in 1985 to use on an M6, and subsequently used on M8, M9, still looks great on my M10. So, too, do my 90mm Tele-Elmarit and, for that matter, my 50mm f3.5 Elmar from the late 1930s.

 

[Rayt]

Raid,

And some old lenses are just stunning on my SL2. BTW the SL2 is mucho much better than the SL with MF lenses, mostly because of the updated way Leica made things better and easier.

My Noct-Nikkor was serviced and cleaned recently, and my 50 Lux-R "E60" was also serviced recently (by Leica N.J.). A good point was made above that the lenses are clean.

The Noct-Nikkor has a hand ground ASPH lens, but the rendering differs from a Noctilux F1.2 in that the sharpness falls off in the corners. The center is mucho sharp, and this is where this lens is optimized. The Noctilux differs in that it is sharper across the frame, but light falls off in the corners.

Anyways I love the rendering of the Noct-Nikkor more than any Noctilux. Also the 58mm reach makes it a better portrait lens. Because of F1.2 the OOF and bokeh resembles that of a longer lens, also it does the shallow DOF thing of a telephoto without being monster huge.

The 50 Lux-R "E60" I don't think is ASPH. It has an extra element over the version one, so my guess it is more highly corrected. This lens is not only rare, but also kinda has perfect rendering. One word to describe it is "Smooth."

Some old glass does crazy good on digital.

BTW since I have all the adapters, using the Noct-Nikkor on a Leica CL digital creates an 87mm F1.2. This is a mucho crazy portrait rig that is small. Just imagine using the sweet spot of a Noct-Nikkor eliminating the soft corners and basically only using the most perfect part of that lens. Then you have F1.2 for shallow DOF and smooth OOF.

The CL with Noct-Nikkor is a killer rig.

Know that the 50 Lux-R "E60" creates a 75 Lux on the CL. I owned a 75 Lux V2, and wide open the rendering was kinda "dreamy." The 50 Lx "E60" rendering is less dreamy meaning more perfect. The OOF and bokeh have that Noctilux smoothness and beauty.

So in my examples these old lenses that pre-date digital are suburb. These are two great example of old glass that is no compromise on digital.

Well the new L-glass is autofocus...

Cal

Cal, Now do you mount the R lenses? The Leica R adapter L is ridiculously expensive but since I have 4 Rom lenses including the E60 50mm and 35mm Summilux-R I suppose I should cough up the dough. With non Leica SLR lenses there is no way to get the R lens menu? Is it important and does it affect ibis? This is what I read online that the camera needs to know the focal length in order for ibis to be optimal.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Leitz lenses are falling more often than FSU lenses.
Newer Leica lenses are just fresher. The only Leica lens I find to be worth of keeper is NIB Summarit-M 35 2.5. And Nokton 35 1.4 II outperformed ELC Lux on digital.
For fifties Rigid is still sharp on digital, non APO Crons after it are focus shifting which results on soft images on digital. Here is thread somewhere on RFF showing it and I had same experience.

 

[maddoc]

I have no experience with a digital RF from Leica but the Sony A7. To my surprise the two Sony lenses I bought, 50/1.8 and 28/2.0, are optically much better than most of my vintage Leitz glass. However, surprisingly, the Noctilux also performs well, as do the the 50mm Summicron vs4, and CV 50/2.5 Color-Skopar.

 

[brusby]

Raid, I think it totally depends on what you're trying to achieve.

My personal opinion is that if a photograph depends upon the Nth degree of lens resolution to succeed, it probably doesn't have much going for it anyway. There are exceptions and I've seen some exquisite, highly detailed photos being done, but they are the rare exception.

As I'm sure you know, the differences between older and more modern lenses are most apparent at widest apertures and those differences become vanishingly small once stopped down even just a stop or two. So, if you're doing landscapes or things where you're stopped down a bit the differences would be almost imperceptible.

But, probably most importantly, I really see absolutely NO correlation between new, expensive, high end gear and good photographs. Often just the opposite. Frankly it's not unusual to see some really dreadful photos being made with the newest and most expensive gear.

Also, the resolution of lenses made as long ago as early last century usually far exceed the level of detail in even the most intimately detailed paintings and other graphic arts by orders of magnitude. The great master painters couldn't produce the level of detail of most of our worst lenses. Their beautiful artwork didn't depend on the kind of resolution some are striving for today to be great.

I love older lenses on modern hi res sensors. In fact I'm kinda going backward and using more and more older Elmars and Summarons and such.

Good luck!

 

[raid]

Leitz lenses are falling more often than FSU lenses.
Newer Leica lenses are just fresher. The only Leica lens I find to be worth of keeper is NIB Summarit-M 35 2.5. And Nokton 35 1.4 II outperformed ELC Lux on digital.
For fifties Rigid is still sharp on digital, non APO Crons after it are focus shifting which results on soft images on digital. Here is thread somewhere on RFF showing it and I had same experience.

We used to have a saying in Iraq that "anything made in the Soviet Union heats up, except the steam iron!"

The cars were pieces of junk.
The SW radio was powerful, using 8 D batteries! The sound control would wobble and create noise and ....
The Lada does not start in the winer and it heats up in the summer. The Moscowich was worse than the Lada.


Now back to lenses ....

 

[raid]

I have no experience with a digital RF from Leica but the Sony A7. To my surprise the two Sony lenses I bought, 50/1.8 and 28/2.0, are optically much better than most of my vintage Leitz glass. However, surprisingly, the Noctilux also performs well, as do the the 50mm Summicron vs4, and CV 50/2.5 Color-Skopar.

It often is a "feel" or a belief to have such a feeling that Leica lenses are superior ... [must be pushed by Leica Wetzlar AG]

 

[raid]

Raid, I think it totally depends on what you're trying to achieve.

My personal opinion is that if a photograph depends upon the Nth degree of lens resolution to succeed, it probably doesn't have much going for it anyway. There are exceptions and I've seen some exquisite, highly detailed photos being done, but they are the rare exception.

As I'm sure you know, the differences between older and more modern lenses are most apparent at widest apertures and those differences become vanishingly small once stopped down even just a stop or two. So, if you're doing landscapes or things where you're stopped down a bit the differences would be almost imperceptible.

But, probably most importantly, I really see absolutely NO correlation between new, expensive, high end gear and good photographs. Often just the opposite. Frankly it's not unusual to see some really dreadful photos being made with the newest and most expensive gear.

Also, the resolution of lenses made as long ago as early last century usually far exceed the level of detail in even the most intimately detailed paintings and other graphic arts by orders of magnitude. The great master painters couldn't produce the level of detail of most of our worst lenses. Their beautiful artwork didn't depend on the kind of resolution some are striving for today to be great.

I love older lenses on modern hi res sensors. In fact I'm kinda going backward and using more and more older Elmars and Summarons and such.

Good luck!

I use both lenses, old and new.
This morning I had a CV Heliar 50/2 on my M10, but then I changed my mind and I decided to also use a Steinheil 80/2.8. When I arrived at Joe Patti's Seafood, I started with the Steinheil. Nothing at all was even close to being in focus. The lens needs lots of shimming. I then switched to the like new Heliar.

 

[quadtones]

Rayt: Novoflex R to M adapter (which has 6-bit coding and brings up R lens menu) works great on my M10 and stacked with a Leica M to L adapter, does the job on my CL with no wobble (btw it’s licensed to Novoflex by Leica). Of course, this won’t transfer the additional information from ROM chipped lenses. The Novoflex adapter is about half the price of the Leica version. I actually picked mine up used on the auction site for $60-, and with no moving parts, there is not a lot that can be or go wrong.

KoFe: Are you referring to the 35mm f1.4 Nokton II compared to the Summilux? Which Summilux? I was thinking about it for my CL as a fast50mm (approx.) equivalent—way smaller than a v2 f1.2 and way cheaper than the v3 of the 35mm f1.2 Nokton.

Raid: I’ve used Canon FD lenses with inexpensive FD-M adapter, with great success. I am using a 135mm f2 nFD that way, on both the M10 with Visoflex 020, and have wondered about looking for an 85mm f1.2 FD lens, myself. I’ve been enjoying your new shots with the M10 on the other thread.

 

[brusby]

I use both lenses, old and new.
This morning I had a CV Heliar 50/2 on my M10, but then I changed my mind and I decided to also use a Steinheil 80/2.8. When I arrived at Joe Patti's Seafood, I started with the Steinheil. Nothing at all was even close to being in focus. The lens needs lots of shimming. I then switched to the like new Heliar.

Yep, same problem here. One thing I find really useful about the M240 and M10 is the ability to use live view to check the accuracy of rangefinder adjustments on lenses. That was one of the first things I did when I got my m240 -- went through all my lenses to see which were out and which were spot on.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

Thoughts from an 'outsider' - I had film Leicas (M2 and M3) and a few lenses in the 1980s but no longer own them.

Almost every Leica owner I know today are using Voigtlander lenses. They have no complaints about the quality of the images they get with these. I've seen their work and I have to agree.

A few with very deep pockets own Leitz lenses. Their results are as good as, but nothing more special.

The two very best lenses I had way back then were the Elmar 50 2.8 and Summarit 50 15. If I were to buy into Leica today (which unless someone kindly gifts me one is unlikely as I'm now retired and I live in Australia, where our dollar is popularly known as the South Pacific Peso and the last time I checked was worth about 70 US cents, so everything is super expensive) I would get the Summarit and make do with that, as it was my most favoritist lens. My Summaron 35 2.8 and Elmar 90 4 were okay, the images they gave were good but that's it.

Admittedly much of this reflects the ability of the shooter and not the glassware. So - just sayin'...

 

[raid]

Rayt: Novoflex R to M adapter (which has 6-bit coding and brings up R lens menu) works great on my M10 and stacked with a Leica M to L adapter, does the job on my CL with no wobble (btw it’s licensed to Novoflex by Leica). Of course, this won’t transfer the additional information from ROM chipped lenses. The Novoflex adapter is about half the price of the Leica version. I actually picked mine up used on the auction site for $60-, and with no moving parts, there is not a lot that can be or go wrong.

KoFe: Are you referring to the 35mm f1.4 Nokton II compared to the Summilux? Which Summilux? I was thinking about it for my CL as a fast50mm (approx.) equivalent—way smaller than a v2 f1.2 and way cheaper than the v3 of the 35mm f1.2 Nokton.

Raid: I’ve used Canon FD lenses with inexpensive FD-M adapter, with great success. I am using a 135mm f2 nFD that way, on both the M10 with Visoflex 020, and have wondered about looking for an 85mm f1.2 FD lens, myself. I’ve been enjoying your new shots with the M10 on the other thread.

I often used the FD lenses with Leica cameras, but these were mainly film cameras. I love the 17/4 FD.

 

[raid]

Raid: I’ve used Canon FD lenses with inexpensive FD-M adapter, with great success. I am using a 135mm f2 nFD that way, on both the M10 with Visoflex 020, and have wondered about looking for an 85mm f1.2 FD lens, myself. I’ve been enjoying your new shots with the M10 on the other thread.

I still have not decided to pay $650 for this finder or not. 😱

 

[Bill Clark]

Do we really need to buy newer Leica lenses?

No.

Way too expensive for me.

I see some are soon coming to market made in Portugal. B&H is showing them and the prices are still too expensive.

 

[raid]

When Leica lenses are sold as Made in China, we may see a drop in the prices, or not at all.

 

[Bingley]

I’m still primarily a film shooter and love using vintage glass on older film RFs. But the ability to use vintage glass on a full frame digicam is exciting to me, bc I can see the character of the lens separated from the vagaries of film development and scanning. So I’ve been shooting a lot of my vintage lenses on my ME 240. Before lockdown I put my 1949 coated Summitar on the ME 240 and went for a stroll to a nearby park. I live in a part of California with very harsh light, particularly in the summer, and the idea of using lower contrast vintage lenses on a digital camera to tame that light is something I want to explore. I’m more interested in the ability of a lens to render a long range of tones than in biting sharpness. Using such a lens on a modern digital Leica seems to me to open possibilities. Here’s one pic I took using the Summitar on the ME 240:


Winter Light by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

I bought the M10 for being a RF camera. If LiveView works well, then I will use it once on a while to improve focusing until I one day get an EVF.

I’ve had a more positive experience using Live View on my M240... for example it’s enabled me to take advantage of the close focusing ability of the Nikkor-HC 50mm f2.0 LTM, closer than normal rangefinder coupling...


Grandma’s hands... by bingley0522, on Flickr

 

[raid]

Beautiful images, Steve.
I also value other aspects in the lenses beyond sharpness.
Live View is not effective when used in bright sunshine outdoors.

 

[Bingley]

Thank you, Raid. I agree that Live View is not useful in bright light outdoors.