Leica I (A) lens rendering

[Pioneer]

I am very fond of the rendering of these lenses. From the Anistigmat on my Null Serie replica.

A camp out along the South Fork of the Humboldt River in Northern Nevada. Late evening shot of the fire building process with Arista EDU Ultra 400 shot at EI200.



Although I don't shoot a lot of color, here is an indoor shot of some party preparation with some Fuji 1600.



But if you aren't careful, it will flare. Here is a shot of some girls softball practice with the sun just outside the lens in the upper left. No hood in this case. It does make a difference when I remember to pack it. 😀



Although it is a more modern lens, the Anistigmat renders very much like my Elmar 50/3.5 lenses so I would suspect it is pretty close to the original.

 

[goamules]

Render Schmender. If I took 2 shots with a Leica lens (pick any), and 2 shots with a Canon, and 2 shots with a former Soviet, no one could pick which was from which. I've done it, on this forum.

 

[CameraQuest]

Leica did several Null series replicas. One included fabulous prints from original Oscar Barnack negatives taken with the original Ur Leica. Buyers had their choice of 10 different prints as I recall.

One such camera and print is listed here http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIB-LEICA-0...334?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4182fed26e

If you are reading this after the link is long dead, just do an ebay search of Leica 0 Series Oscar Barnack. The folding finder version did not include the print. The fixed finder version did include the print - but some are sold without the print by those who decided to keep the print, but not the camera. If you buy the print of the street scene in Wetzlar, you can visit that same house and and take your own version - as I did.

Best,
Stephen

 

[Pioneer]

Render Schmender. If I took 2 shots with a Leica lens (pick any), and 2 shots with a Canon, and 2 shots with a former Soviet, no one could pick which was from which. I've done it, on this forum.

Absolutely true. But as the photographer I do get a chance to compare the lens I am using against others that I am using. In this case I like this one quite a bit. 🙂

 

[Pioneer]

Leica did several Null series replicas. One included fabulous prints from original Oscar Barnack negatives taken with the original Ur Leica. Buyers had their choice of 10 different prints as I recall.

One such camera and print is listed here http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIB-LEICA-0...334?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4182fed26e

If you are reading this after the link is long dead, just do an ebay search of Leica 0 Series Oscar Barnack. The folding finder version did not include the print. The fixed finder version did include the print - but some are sold without the print by those who decided to keep the print, but not the camera. If you buy the print of the street scene in Wetzlar, you can visit that same house and and take your own version - as I did.

Best,
Stephen

Very nice. Mine did not come with the photograph but neither does it come with the image of the Honorable Mr. Barnack on the back. Fair trade in my opinion.

 

[Dralowid]

I used a long since sold converted original Anastigmat for a while (see my Avatar). To be completely honest I couldn't really tell the difference between it and an uncoated Elmar.

Its sale funded all sorts of purchases for many years....

 

[David Hughes]

I don't understand. Please explain.

Hi,

I've been wondering just what it is that you don't understand. Can you expand the statement, please?

Regards, David

 

[laffertyphotography]

I don't understand what was meant by the statement, "None of these shots have anything to do with the camera used."

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Well, my take on it is that there's a lot of other cameras and lenses that could have taken those pictures. So the argument goes that they don't show what's special about the rendering of the early lenses.

Talking of rendering, whatever it means; the aperture used will make the prints all look different, roughly speaking. Being lazy and not having tested my lenses in detail, I rely on old fashioned rules of thumb about the lens being at its best 2 stops from widest but then improving - in the centre only - for another two or so stops. It could be completely wrong and as I work to 5 x 7" prints the edges are cut off anyway.

Regards, David

 

[pete hogan]

A variation on that argument considers the "camera" (body) as separate from the lens. As long as the shutter covers the entire film gate, and as long as it mounts the lens in the correct place, and it doesn't leak unwanted light, the "camera" doesn't matter.

When you took your picture you presumably knew which lens you used and associated that information with the image. Another observer without that lens-used information will not be able to determine reliably the lens that you used. Not that they might not try to, however.

 

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Hi,

Well, my take on it is that there's a lot of other cameras and lenses that could have taken those pictures. So the argument goes that they don't show what's special about the rendering of the early lenses.

Talking of rendering, whatever it means; the aperture used will make the prints all look different, roughly speaking. Being lazy and not having tested my lenses in detail, I rely on old fashioned rules of thumb about the lens being at its best 2 stops from widest but then improving - in the centre only - for another two or so stops. It could be completely wrong and as I work to 5 x 7" prints the edges are cut off anyway.

Regards, David

+ 1 Especially all these photo's shot at higher f-stop values, could have been taken by any camera - stopped down to e.g. f 8 most pictures taken by different lenses/different makes will look the same

 

[Pioneer]

Another from my Null Series

Wide open at 3.5 and 1/20 seconds. AEU400 at ISO200. A few dust spots and some lines in the picture that may have come from my bulk loader or the cassette.

Waiting on Breakfast

 

[David Hughes]

+ 1 Especially all these photo's shot at higher f-stop values, could have been taken by any camera - stopped down to e.g. f 8 most pictures taken by different lenses/different makes will look the same

Hi,

I took some snaps a while ago - just seconds apart - with both the Olympus XA and Leica M2 and the 35mm f/2.8 lens to mimic the XA. Same film used, same exposure, individual focussing and then both went through the lab together. Result, very little difference most of the time; just minor problems matching the XA's step-less shutter speeds...

Regards, David