matteiflex
Member
I would be interested in hearing your views and opinions on the differing qualities of vintage leitz m mount lenses and there modern leica m mount equivalents. What do you like and dislike and why? What formed your current choice of lenses?
chris00nj
Young Luddite
I think the differences are more minor that we sometimes make them out to be.
I recently ran a few 50mm Leica mount lenses through a few rounds comparitive tests. (See Round 1, Round 2, Round 3) I'm not rich enough to afford modern Leica M mount lenses, but I think the Nokton 50/1.5 has similar modern qualities.
The older lenses will have softer corner sharpness at wider apertures. There is also the famed "Leica glow" evident on the Summicron DR shot, which I am fairly confident is NOT flare.
I recently ran a few 50mm Leica mount lenses through a few rounds comparitive tests. (See Round 1, Round 2, Round 3) I'm not rich enough to afford modern Leica M mount lenses, but I think the Nokton 50/1.5 has similar modern qualities.
The older lenses will have softer corner sharpness at wider apertures. There is also the famed "Leica glow" evident on the Summicron DR shot, which I am fairly confident is NOT flare.
matteiflex
Member
Thanks, interesting comparisons in your side by side testing. Lens qualities goes deep, and hard to quantify and describe.
Bingley
Veteran
I don't own any modern Leica m-mount lenses, but I think general differences between vintage and modern lenses would apply: the vintage lenses will generally be lower contrast, softer wide open, and some (e.g., Summitar) will flare easily if pointed in the direction of a light source. Modern lenses will have better coatings, be more flare resistant, be sharper wide open edge to edge, and have higher contrast compared to vintage lenses. Beyond that, I think you need to ask about the specific qualities of particular lenses, for which there are countless threads here on RFF.
Oh, yes, vintage Leica lenses will also be much less expensive than their modern equivalents (which is why some of us only own vintage lenses from Leica), but you need to shop carefully to avoid lenses that have been damaged (some of the older lenses used soft glass that scratched easily, and some are reportedly prone to hazing and fungus).
Some of the older lenses (Elmar, Summitar, Summar, early Summicrons) have distinctive characteristics and "drawing" qualities that some of us like. Beyond that, what lenses are you interested in?
Oh, yes, vintage Leica lenses will also be much less expensive than their modern equivalents (which is why some of us only own vintage lenses from Leica), but you need to shop carefully to avoid lenses that have been damaged (some of the older lenses used soft glass that scratched easily, and some are reportedly prone to hazing and fungus).
Some of the older lenses (Elmar, Summitar, Summar, early Summicrons) have distinctive characteristics and "drawing" qualities that some of us like. Beyond that, what lenses are you interested in?
Bingley
Veteran
One further comment: there aren't many side-by-side comparisons of vintage and modern Leica lenses (which ones would you compare?), but you can get a sense of characteristics and differences of vintage and modern lenses at the M-mount group over at flickr. Here's the link:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/m-mount/
maddoc
... likes film again.
I like vintage Leitz lenses for BW photography with the special "old-school look" but prefer more modern Leitz (Leica) lenses for color-photography (especially color-slide film). However, I can`t afford a single lens of the actual or most recent line of Leica lenses, so I have limited myself to lenses build before around 1990, which were still affordable until maybe 4 years ago. These (all "pre-ASPH") lenses are all I would need for my photography and are best balanced with respect to color-rendition, sharpness, contrast etc.
awslee
Well-known
I have both and I find I like to use the vintage lenses more. They have more feel vs. the technically perfect modern lens which in my opinion lack character. (e.g. I find the Noctilux E58's rendering much more unique than the .95). Also, some of the vintage lens is much more expensive than the modern ones such as 50/1.2 and the 35/1.4 AA.
ottluuk
the indecisive eternity
The good thing about classic glass is that if you are not that fussy about having the fast stuff, you can put together a set of, say, Summaron 35/3.5, Elmar 50/2.8 and Elmar 90/4 for less than the cost of a single modern Summicron 50.
In good light, stopped down to f/5.6 or so, you have a compact, versatile kit that is capable of good results and feels nice to work with. You can choose to accept the lower-contrast 1960-s look, or you can compensate with development/post production.
Wide open... oh well. You get the occasional flare and lose some resolution, especially in the corners. With faster glass you also get clouds of sickly swirling donuts (appreciated by some of the bokeh aficionados, though - YMMV) in OOF areas.
I've found that the stuff that I like among my photos is usually either daylight stuff or photographed from a firm tripod. So having slow lenses or lenses that need to be stopped down is not such a big problem. Not having money is, on the other hand, a big problem.
Obviously, you can get modern, technically excellent Japanese glass for similar money as the Leitz oldies, so it is not simply a practical decision. For me, there's something pleasant and comforting about using gear that could have been used 60 years ago, immerse myself into the old working methods and get good results. I guess it's a way to distance myself from today's computer-driven, computer-designed, robot-assembled, toy today - trash tomorrow kind of world. I have digital cameras, modern lenses, computer and software for addressing practical tasks but my personal photography is hardly a practical matter.
In good light, stopped down to f/5.6 or so, you have a compact, versatile kit that is capable of good results and feels nice to work with. You can choose to accept the lower-contrast 1960-s look, or you can compensate with development/post production.
Wide open... oh well. You get the occasional flare and lose some resolution, especially in the corners. With faster glass you also get clouds of sickly swirling donuts (appreciated by some of the bokeh aficionados, though - YMMV) in OOF areas.
I've found that the stuff that I like among my photos is usually either daylight stuff or photographed from a firm tripod. So having slow lenses or lenses that need to be stopped down is not such a big problem. Not having money is, on the other hand, a big problem.
Obviously, you can get modern, technically excellent Japanese glass for similar money as the Leitz oldies, so it is not simply a practical decision. For me, there's something pleasant and comforting about using gear that could have been used 60 years ago, immerse myself into the old working methods and get good results. I guess it's a way to distance myself from today's computer-driven, computer-designed, robot-assembled, toy today - trash tomorrow kind of world. I have digital cameras, modern lenses, computer and software for addressing practical tasks but my personal photography is hardly a practical matter.
ferider
Veteran
The first question in my mind is what you consider vintage and what modern. For example, is the Summilux 50/1.4 v2 vintage or modern ?
I myself have a vintage and a modern "kit". Where vintage are Nikkors from the 50s (with several Sonnars), and modern are Mandler lenses younger than me
I do see significant differences that I like, in particular for 50mm and longer.
Roland.
I myself have a vintage and a modern "kit". Where vintage are Nikkors from the 50s (with several Sonnars), and modern are Mandler lenses younger than me
I do see significant differences that I like, in particular for 50mm and longer.
Roland.
Mr G
Established
exactly what I think
Dektol Dan
Well-known
What's a modern lens?
What's a modern lens?
One with a coating?
One designed with a computer rather than by pencil and paper computation?
What's the first modern lens?....a Tessar?
To me the first modern lens is a coated Kodak Ektar. I'm sure others have their choice based on glass formula too, so that would be around 1952 and later?
What's a modern lens?
One with a coating?
One designed with a computer rather than by pencil and paper computation?
What's the first modern lens?....a Tessar?
To me the first modern lens is a coated Kodak Ektar. I'm sure others have their choice based on glass formula too, so that would be around 1952 and later?