Lens character - old or new?

S

Steve George

Established
Local time
1:48 PM
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
58
Location
Sussex, UK
View My Gallery
Hi all

I'll start this off by saying how friendly this forum seems. Very nice! I've lurked, posted a couple of times, but always liked the way it "feels" here. 🙂

I've got the following lenses: 40mm Summicron from a CL, 50mm Summicron (latest), 90mm Summicron (1963 vintage I think). In the past I've also owned various VC lenses (35mm Ultron, 90mm APO Lanthar), old Leica (Summarits) and assorted Jupiters and Industars...

I love the look the Summicrons give over all the others - this is why I've kept hold of them. The 50mm (or was it 5cm?)Summarits also gave a look I liked - less contrasty but still sharp - but the swirlies wide open were less nice and meant they would never be a permanent fixture. Recently though I'm becoming more and more aware that a few times the 50mm Summicron is just a little bit too sharp - a bit unflattering in some cases where flattering would be nice. I don't think I'll ever replace it - but it would be nice to have the option to be kinder to subjects.

So now I'll get to the point of this post! I've just read another post where someone refers to a lens having a character that was too modern for their personal taste. I'm guessing the latest 50mm Summicron comes under that banner too - the 90mm renders light in the same way (to my eyes at least) but is a bit kinder while still being sharp (if that makes any sense at all). So my question is, how do you define "less modern" lens character, and what lenses, around the 50mm mark display it?

If I was to get an earlier, older 50mm Summicron would it have the same "look" and apparent sharpness without being cruelly sharp in the way that the older 90mm exhibits these qualities?

Thanks
 
Hi and welcome Steve,

I'm not sure I'll answer your question in full, but I have a collapsible Summicron 50/2 (from the sixties, I guess). For one of the first portraits I took with it, the reaction of the person in the photo (when he saw it) was: "Don't ever use that lens on me again - or at least not before you apply some steel wool to the front element" 🙂

The guy in the photo was in his early fifties.... EVERY wrinkle and scar on his face vas clearly visible... It had to do a bit with lighting, too, but still...

An option for more "flattering" portraits would be to use a softar of similar filter... Smaller, lighter and easier to use than another lens in the photo bag.

Another option might be to use a Summitar or Summaron. I have a Summitar 50/2, and it's a bit less "clinically" sharp than Summicron.

BTW, my Summicron also has a slight tendency towards "swirly" bokeh.

HTH,

Denis
 
Interesting question, I am also looking for an alternative to my Summicron 50 along the lines you mention for use in portraiture. I kinda like the look of the Jupiter 8 and would like to try further alternatives in that direction. Some people here have mentioned Sonnar (expensive and difficult to find in LTM?) and Sonnar-like designs. There's a Canon 1.5 (and 1.4 ?), Nikkor, the J3.

Brian Sweeney published some great shots taken with the Canon 50/1.5 in this thread. Seems to be difficult to find, though.
 
This is my "hot topic" at the moment too. I have a collapsible Summicron and a modern black '69 Summicron, and I have recently added a Summitar and a Summarit, in search of lens character. All I need now is some time to use them.
 
Last edited:
Steve George said:
Hi all

I'll start this off by saying how friendly this forum seems. Very nice! I've lurked, posted a couple of times, but always liked the way it "feels" here. 🙂
Click to expand...

Me too Steve. It seems that trolls, offensive material and boorish responses just don't get posted here, not just that the moderators are more stricter. On the other Leica forum I gave up on, even one of the moderators would post snide, sarcastic "Leica bashing" remarks. My granddaddy used to say "a fish starts to stink from the head".

So my question is, how do you define "less modern" lens character, and what lenses, around the 50mm mark display it?

If I was to get an earlier, older 50mm Summicron would it have the same "look" and apparent sharpness without being cruelly sharp in the way that the older 90mm exhibits these qualities?

Thanks
Click to expand...

I've got a collapsible 50/3.5 Elmar, collapsible Cron, rigid chrome type-1 50 Cron, 1969-type Cron, pre-ASPH 50 Lux, and used to have the latest Cron. With the undertanding that I've never set my camera on a tripod aimed at a resolution target, bookshelf or some other subject I'd never photograph, and wasted time and film making identical shots with each lens at different apertures to pore over with a loupe at magnifications I'd never enlarge to, I don't find any jarring differences in "character" between any of them. The oldest lenses are more easily affected by flare in backlit situations, and they're a little less saturated and a tad softer in the far corners until stopped down 2-3 stops. The 1969 Cron and latest Cron were indistinguishable, the Lux at comparable apertures is within a gnat's whisker.
 
Steve George said:
I've just read another post where someone refers to a lens having a character that was too modern for their personal taste.
Click to expand...

Did someone call for me?

I shoot wide-open (or within a stop or two of wide-open) all the time, and I'm fond of the way my lenses, particularly my uncoated Summitar, show lower contrast and a little less sharpness than the current stuff. I don't mind a bit of tendency toward flare when shooting into the light, either. I'm in the market for an uncoated 90mm Elmar, now, too.
 
A gnat's whisker is indeed not too great a distance!

Anybody who wants more 'flattering' portraits should, rather than simply reaching for the pocketbook, try a very cheap trick that many fashion photographers use.

It involves black pantyhose (used or new is up to you) cut into a circle, and attached to the lens via a screw in filter. Simply cover the front element with the hose material, and screw the filter in gently, so as not to bind it. The material should of course be pulled tight before this is done.

Not only does it soften contrast a bit, but gives the picture a certain kind of glow, or luminescence.

Other color pantyhose, such as white, etc. achieve other effects, black is the most multi-purpose one.
 
Playing the devil's advocate here, but ... if you find your lens too sharp, in Photoshop can't you just add a tiny bit of Gaussain blur to the image if you want it softer? Or in the darkroom, beam it through a bit of gauze or nylon?

[edit: sorry, missed your reply Bobofish. that's exactly what I was suggesting]

Gene
 
I started with modern summicrons, but along the line bought a 35 & 50 Summilux (both pre-asph) in search for the "old Leica look".

For those interested I put a small gallery together with some pre-asph lux pictures (35&50) along with some pictures from the current 50 cron. Unfortunately i have no people shots woth the 35 asph on-line.



http://www.shutterfreaks.com/gallery/35mm-summilux-pre-asph



I think the difference in signature goes a bit further than sharpness alone.

I love the 50 Summicron but do not like the 35 summicron ASPH for people shots.

Han
 
Last edited:
The problem with adding diffusion in the darkroom is that darkness spreads into the highlight areas, instead of highlights glowing into the darker areas which is what happens when diffusion is added as the picture is being taken. The effect is totally different. Photos take on a sinister look (IMO) when darkroom diffusion is added. This is much different than the glowy results of in-camera diffusion.
 
Thanks Bobofish, that's a great suggestion. While I like my old Jupiter-8's softer look sometimes I got it for price, not because it's my ideal 50 (can you say 50 'lux ASPH?). I'd rather have a very sharp lens and a bit of pantyhose myself. I'm definitely going to try that!

Edit: Has anyone tried the soft filters vs. the pantyhose? Is there a different effect?
 
Thanks all for responses - that's great. Does anyone have any examples of the panty-hose effect? Similarly, any examples taken with a softar would be interesting. I just curious as to how subtle the effect is with both variations on a theme.

Thanks again.
 
Summar

Summar

Hello:

I would have suggested a 1st generation Summicron. Most of what can be said has been.

One not expensive option, if you are looking for a distinctive lens signature as a solution, is to aquire a good example of a Summar, sharp in the center and lowish contrast near wide open. Or, at the other cost extreme, a 75mmSummilux wide open!*

yours
Frank

*not the most serious of solutions.
 
Frank: Do you mean the rigid Summicron first version or the collapsible one that some refer to as first version?
 
Will the pantyhose trick (!) work on an enlarger, too? I like having a sharp photo to begin with and be able to add "special effects" later.
 
Great post - the problem of unforgiving lenses' harshness on aging faces is much on my mind, too.

FWIW, I just got my newly acquired LTM Summarit back from Golden Touch, CLA'd and relacquered. I hope to get more pleasing results with it than my DR 50. I'd be pleased to approach what Frank has obtained in his portrait of his old canine friend and also Merciful's portraits of middle-agers.
 
I've got a Zeiss Softar for my Apo 90 Summicron ASPH lens, but rarely use it. I usually shoot the 90 SAA lens wide open. This shot of my youngest daughter is taken wide open at F2, and has been cropped and resized in photoshop at least 50%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom