Is this really a worthwhile Leica lens upgrade?

[Rob-F]

I guess I can't complain about the Planar. I took this one with it last year, and I guess while it's not really testing the lens at F8, I was very pleased with how sharp it was.

So I shall persevere with the Zeiss for now....

View attachment 4858644

This is certainly gorgeous, painterly, to say the least. It's not all the Zeiss lens, though. You have made a fine photograph!

 

[Rob-F]

The heart wants what the heart wants! As long as you realize that your reasons are primarily emotional, and you don't expect the Summicron to be the magic bullet for your photography, then go for it. I'd be the last one to condemn anyone for putting emotion over reason, having done so on many occasions myself!

One's reasons may well be emotional, primarily or partially. Then again, they can be aesthetic, and artistic. The approach of "this lens outperforms that one at such and such an aperture" (often meaning one lens is sharper than the other) could be most important for some. It used to be, for me. But increasingly, we are learning to appreciate that lenses vary in certain characteristics, including some that we may have once regarded as flaws; yet they may deliver exactly what the photographer wants.

Some recent lenses for cinematography have become so clinically sharp that the directors and cinematographers don't want them. Leica, Panavision and others are offering them lenses with a pleasing balance that doesn't prioritize sharpness over other virtues. Director of Photography Alice Brooks needed a pair of lenses with a special quality not present in currently available motion picture lenses, a quality known as Flare. That's right, flare. She special ordered them from Panavision. Panavision asked her what color she wanted them to flare in. She told them, and Panavision delivered. To get exactly the image she wanted, she added Tiffen Glimmerglass filters to kill some of the biting sharpness of digital movies, and to add some more "glow". You can see the result near the beginning of the movie "Wicked" (go see it if you haven't), where the witch arrives in a bubble backlit by the sun.

I own and use three 50mm Summicrons. My 1950's version one collapsible, used wide open, gives me, at close distance, a lovely rounded soft-sharp look. It's not as sharp as my version four, but that's not the point. Then again, my 50mm Zeiss has a purity of color and a depth I don 't get from the Summicrons. And the focusing bump is wonderfully easy to use--and, as another member mentioned, the feel of the gear in the hand when shooting, counts!

So I think the way forward is to look for a quality we might call balance. Balance among the various characteristics we value. You know? OOh, this lens is too sharp! This one is too flat! This one is just right! And there is room for Ecowarrior's emotional attachment to a lens, as well.

 

[Archiver]

Some recent lenses for cinematography have become so clinically sharp that the directors and cinematographers don't want them. Leica, Panavision and others are offering them lenses with a pleasing balance that doesn't prioritize sharpness over other virtues. Director of Photography Alice Brooks needed a pair of lenses with a special quality not present in currently available motion picture lenses, a quality known as Flare. That's right, flare. She special ordered them from Panavision. Panavision asked her what color she wanted them to flare in. She told them, and Panavision delivered. To get exactly the image she wanted, she added Tiffen Glimmerglass filters to kill some of the biting sharpness of digital movies, and to add some more "glow". You can see the result near the beginning of the movie "Wicked" (go see it if you haven't), where the witch arrives in a bubble backlit by the sun.

Didn't know this, thanks for this information. Always interested in what is happening in the cinematography world.

I own and use three 50mm Summicrons. My 1950's version one collapsible, used wide open, gives me, at close distance, a lovely rounded soft-sharp look. It's not as sharp as my version four, but that's not the point. Then again, my 50mm Zeiss has a purity of color and a depth I don 't get from the Summicrons. And the focusing bump is wonderfully easy to use--and, as another member mentioned, the feel of the gear in the hand when shooting, counts!

So I think the way forward is to look for a quality we might call balance. Balance among the various characteristics we value. You know? OOh, this lens is too sharp! This one is too flat! This one is just right! And there is room for Ecowarrior's emotional attachment to a lens, as well.

That's the joy of being able to own multiple lenses and cameras, you get to choose what suits your needs at any given time.

One day I might want a compact body with a wide angle lens that can take in an entire room, like an art gallery - Panasonic GX85 with Pana Leica 9mm f1.7. Another time I might want a fast camera for outdoor sports - Panasonic G9 with Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8. Or I want the best image quality with full frame depth of field control - M9, Pana S1 or S5, or Leica SL2-S.

Even with 35s there are choices: sharp vintage look with the Ultron 35mm f1.7 LTM, modern super sharp and 3D pop with the Distagon 35/1.4, and glowy vintage with the Nokton 35/1.4 MC.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

The cool thing about the "normal" lens in any format, is that the designs are very mature, with the exception of newer aspherical designs. The older normals tend to be reasonably inexpensive and if you get a good sample of a lens from the 1930s, there is reasonable expectation that it will perform well enough to go head to head with a brand new lens of the same design. Like I stated in my Helios 103 anecdote, you'll be getting at least 95% of the performance of the newer expensive lens.

I have both a 50mm f/2 Chiyoko Super Rokkor, and Konishiroku Hexar 50mm f/3.5 collapsible (both near mint) which I have not yet seen a full-frame image from, and I'm very much looking forward to developing a few rolls and scanning. The Rokkor was mislabeled with a stupid low price, which I told the seller about and he thanked me then offered me the lens for pennies. If I'm correct in my research, the Super Rokkor is a Heliar derivative.
The collapsible Hexar came attached to a Leotax K with missing body covering, and the pair cost me $15 plus shipping. I cleaned the camera, the rangefinder, adjusted it and made a body cover out of the old MB Tex from the original seat back panels of my old 1972 Mercedes Benz.
Anyway, I digress. I'll put either of those cheap lenses up against a V5 'Cron aperture for aperture and would be happy with the results. From my center cropped images taken with those lenses on my GX85, they look fantastic. Go forth, get some cheap 50s and find that character wide open; or stop the lens down to 5.6 or beyond and you have your Summicron.

Phil

 

[swatch]

Lenses are different in rendering, no matter in greater or smaller degree, more often I pick a lens that make me feel better in use in my hand such as size, focus ( smoothness and mfd ).

 

[rfaspen]

Well. It's not cheap but I do like my v4 summicron 50. I also like my J-3, and my canon 50/1.4, and even my 7A 50/1.1.....
Point is, I had the funds and got the summicron. But I got lots of lenses and I just like using them all 😎.