It's a combination of the high degree of correction for chromatic aberration in Leica lenses and the setpoint of the resolution vs contrast function. The later Leica lenses moved this setpoint in favor of yielding higher contrast to compete with the popular Japanese lenses of the 1960s. They do not have the same "glow" of the mid 1960s and earlier lenses.
And now, for my favorite Nick Trop quote.
(well, paraphrase actually. More like Monster Mad Libs. I love this line. Just fill in any explanation for any question and re-use it.)
Well, as we used to say in Physics class "That is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".
And now, for my favorite Nick Trop quote.
(well, paraphrase actually. More like Monster Mad Libs. I love this line. Just fill in any explanation for any question and re-use it.)
Well, as we used to say in Physics class "That is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer".
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
I always thought it was American slang abuse of similie. It means "as a glow."
Well, I can put my two Thorium Summicrons under a Phosphor Screen and demonstrate a direct glow.
But I'm not going to bother.
Instead, I invite everyone to post pictures on the thread taken with the lens of their choice that demonstrated "Glow" as they understand it.
First up, Thorium Summicrons which do glow under any definition found in a dictionary.
But I'm not going to bother.
Instead, I invite everyone to post pictures on the thread taken with the lens of their choice that demonstrated "Glow" as they understand it.
First up, Thorium Summicrons which do glow under any definition found in a dictionary.
Late Collapsible Summicron.
Type 1 5cm F2 Summicron, 1957 vintage.
Using a Histogram of the image produced from a 1950s Leitz Summarit lens and a contemporary Nikkor 5cm F1.4 shows that the Leitz lens does not clip the image. Shadow detail and highlight areas are maintained.
But I did not take the Nikkor along that day for a direct comparison.
Using a Histogram of the image produced from a 1950s Leitz Summarit lens and a contemporary Nikkor 5cm F1.4 shows that the Leitz lens does not clip the image. Shadow detail and highlight areas are maintained.
But I did not take the Nikkor along that day for a direct comparison.
Last edited:
Summarit 5cm F1.5.
And Shirley, you can see the clipping that takes place in this Sonnar 5cm F2 "T" converted to LTM.
Veiling Flare in a Sonnar.
Veiling Flare in a Sonnar.
Okay. Salvo 1 fired. More photo's ready to be uploaded and launched.
Nuke em till they glow, Baby. The Designer of the original Summicron coined that phrase.
Nuke em till they glow, Baby. The Designer of the original Summicron coined that phrase.
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
Oh, man, you should have seen my GF's face when she realized I was laughing at camera jokes.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Just to prove a point. Not only Leica lenses have the famous "glow". This is with a Nikkor 25mm f4.0 that looked like someone had cleaned the front element with a carbide sandpaper!!!
Last edited:
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Even more ethereal glow. Looks like the aftermath of a failed nuclear experiment. Nikkor 25mm f4.0 with heavily scratched front element. It has since been replaced with one that has a pristine front element - not as much glow, same amount of fall-off though. I kind of miss the " glowing" version occasionally.
You can get a similar effect by shooting Lucky 100 film and Agfa Scopix X-ray films. The lack of anti-halation backing does make it "glow" in strong back-light. Combine it with a foggy Summar 50f2 and there is enough glow to satisfy anyone.
Last edited:
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
So, is it different from the Mamiya flare?
DanOnRoute66
I now live in Des Moines
Yes, Leica Glow costs several hundred dollars MORE to achieve!
jvan01
Established
Reminds me of wine snobs who expound on the incontrovertible virtues of the terroir.
Leica does not have a monopoly on glow.
But Modern lenses have lost it.
1956 J-3 5cm F1.5 wide-open.
This lens cost $50 on Ebay last year. Before letting everyone else know how good KMZ J-3's are..
Wide-Open on the Canon P.
But Modern lenses have lost it.
1956 J-3 5cm F1.5 wide-open.
This lens cost $50 on Ebay last year. Before letting everyone else know how good KMZ J-3's are..
Wide-Open on the Canon P.
Kodak Retina II with 5cm f2 Schneider Xenon, wide-open
Wide-Open
Stopped down.
Wide-Open
Stopped down.
Of course, the FSU lenses are the exception as they are derived from older designs and did not "sell-out" by changing the contrast vs resolution setpoint to compete with the Japanese lenses.
Helios-103 and Menopta 53/1.8.
I never have any strong opinions, and even if I did- I would never think of expressing them.
Helios-103 and Menopta 53/1.8.
I never have any strong opinions, and even if I did- I would never think of expressing them.
Collapsible Summicron with front element repaired using an eye-glass coating repair kit, as seen on TV.
Attack Pattern Nikon 5cm F1.4.
10.5cm F2.5
10.5cm F2.5
Last edited:
So what conclusion can we draw about glow?
Most older lenses have it, but if a computer was used to formulate the optics it is lost.
Modern lenses "just don't have what it takes".
And everyone, especially me, is tired of hearing about it. Use a lens because you like the image that it produces and not the metaphors that are used to describe it.
Most older lenses have it, but if a computer was used to formulate the optics it is lost.
Modern lenses "just don't have what it takes".
And everyone, especially me, is tired of hearing about it. Use a lens because you like the image that it produces and not the metaphors that are used to describe it.