Most "Leica" Lens

[Trius]

Brian: Thanks for the info. I know I loved that DR when I had it. If get back to M mount, I would like to have one, even if it were "duplicated" by another 50. Hmmm, where is that "how many 50s" thread?

Trius

 

[JON@ jb-ci]

Hologon

Hologon

I use all my Leica optics for the fine images they produce but I have a real soft
in my heart for the Hologon 15 mm f8.
JON

 

[Harry Lime]

I believe that history drives the answer to this question.

The 'Leica signature' is strongly associated with a body of photographic work which spans from the 1930's to the late 60's. After that Nikon became the standard for photojournalists and we see a different signature in pictures.

You can break the Leica years in to three periods, pre and post 1954 (the year that the Summicron was introduced) and the 80's/90's.

Up until the introduction of the Summicron in the mid 50's, the Leica look was that of the Elmar and during the war the Summitar. During these years the Summar fingerprint is also highly recognizeable, but it seems that many pros avoided this lens, because it can flare quite easily and the Summitar was a stronger performer.

From 1954 on the look of the Summicron collapsible and DR/Rigid dominates the Leica signature. In particular the collapsible model has a very recognizeable look (See H.C.B.'s work)

Moving in to the late 70's and 80's the Leica signature becomes very modern. The newest lenses deliver extremely high resolution and high contrast at any stop, which results in a very realistic and three dimensional signature.

But overall it seems that most people identify the 'Leica look' with the first two periods, in particular the post war era.

One obvious reason is the post war explosion of photo magazines, the golden era of photojournalism. Standard equipment back then was a Leica or Rolleiflex. Later during the Vietnam period it became a Leica and Nikon.

1948 also saw the birth of the Magnum photo agency. Magnum and its stable of star shooters dominated the field during this period in to the 70's, when TV killed the mags. Magnum was and still is largely comprised of Leica shooters. So, a very large percentage of shots that you see from that era were taken with a Leica lens.

 

[kbg32]

The 5cm F3.5 Elmar established Leica cameras. Every Leica Lover should have one. They are sharp, small, compact lenses. When collapsed, they are almost flat on the camera. And they are not that expensive.

If you have the latest Summicron already, it would be a good complement to it.

Frank, do you have an Elmar?

Have to agree wih Brian. The Elmar helped establish the Leica mystique.

 

[telenous]

Relative newcomer though I am, this thread reminds me 'the old times'. I am so very glad for that.

The one lens I will never sell is the rigid Summicron 50 (I version). It was my first ever lens for M mount cameras, I got into a helluva trouble to find one in near mint condition and I love it to smitherins. It is a superb lens and it has sold me to Leica forever.

 

[Mackinaw]

I'll go with the 75mm Summilux. This lens has a very distinct "look" that seems to stand out from other lenses of this general focal length.

Jim Bielecki

 

[ampguy]

answer

answer

It's the Rokkor 40mm f2 CLE lens. Or it better be. 😛

I know this is extraordinarily subjective. I was wondering what the ultimate Leica lens is. This does not necessarily mean quality. In fact, it will probably not mean quality. For example, the newest lenses maay be of the highest quality, but not necessarily represent the ideal personality that a lens gives. Feel free to either claim that a thread-mount or an M mount is the top lens. Or the best of each category. Either way, please give a reason for your choice.

Thanks,
Harrison

P.S. Pretend that price has no bearing on the decision. I am a college student, and I will almost surely use this information to purchase a 50mm lens--currently I have the newest (hood included, no tab) version of the 50mm Summicron--most likely a more classic, older lens. Nonetheless, when making a quality decision, please ignore price completely.

Thanks again,
Harrison

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Harry Lime]

What's wrong with the 35 ASPH Summicron? I really want to know!!!

There is nothing wrong with the 35 Cron ASPH. It is among the best lenses Leica has ever made.

The Cron ASPH and Summilux ASPH perform pretty much identical, except of course the Lux is a stop faster.

The Cron ASPH is slightly sharper at f2 and f2.8 than the v4 pre-ASPH Cron (mostly in the corners).

The Cron ASPH has a shorter transition to out of focus than the pre-asph model, because it is more highly corrected. That said the Cron ASPH has exceptionally smooth bokeh for a ASPH design.

The Cron ASPH delivers images as flat as a pancake, which means that your test shots of your favorite brick wall will be...well, as flat as a brick wall. In other words geometric distortion is non-existent.

I have the v4 pre-asph Cron (recent Leica CLA) and a Summilux ASPH. Their performance is very similar as is their fingerprint.

As far as I am concerned the 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH is a contender as perhaps the best lens that Leica has ever made.

The balance of sharpness, contrast and glow is perfect. I don't know how they did it, but while this lens is stunningly sharp at any stop it doesn't produce images that feel brittle or harsh. It is exceptionally flare proof, yet it glows like the older Mandeler designs. I've made some 16x20 fiberprints that have such a three dimensional quality to them that they look like they are going to leap off the page. Even laymen comment on this phenomina.

But in any case you really can't go wrong with any of these three (v4 pre-ASPH Cron, Lux ASPH or Cron ASPH).

The pre-ASPH Lux is a gem in it's own right. From f4 on down it can't keep up with the other three lenses as far as sheer performance goes. At f1.4 and f2 it simply is soft. BUT MTF charts aren't everything. The pre-ASPH Lux draws pictures with the same magic that the collapsible Summicron does, so it certainly has its place.


Look here for a technical review:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-35.html

 

[J. Borger]

There is nothing wrong with the 35 Cron ASPH. It is among the best lenses Leica has ever made ................

Your reasoning is very valid Harry... so in the end it all comes down to preference for a certain look of pictures. Nothing wrong in prefering the older look if it fits your vision!

For shooting concrete buildings or landscapes/ sceneries i might prefer the asph cron .....

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I too prefer the look of the 50 and 35 pre ASPH Luxes. Together they compliment each other.
I used to use the 75 lux and Noctilux side by side but i prefer the former combination in recent projects and most of the time they are shot from 1.4 - f2.8.

 

[Harry Lime]

I too prefer the look of the 50 and 35 pre ASPH Luxes. Together they compliment each other.

What year is your 50 Lux?


thanks

HL

 

[netzspannung]

My 2 cents

This is an interesting thread, and I would really want to hear from someone familiar with optical design of these lenses. As far as I know, the Elmar is the classical Zeiss Tessar scheme, a 4-element design modified by Barnack, that has a characteristic signature. Could you please post some photos here, as I don't have any shot with this lens.

As Beniliam said, for a college student (I ceased to be one last month 😎 ) nothing beats the Zeiss Sonnar represented by soviet Jupiter8 and Jupiter3, they have a truly excellent and recognisable way of "drawing" things.. But this may be OT, as you want a leica lens

 

[ffttklackdedeng]

For me, the 'most Leica' lens is one that fits nicely to the body, i.e. is from the same period of time.

I don't bother about the sharpness etc. because I think there are no real losers out there. Having the latest sharpest one would just make me concentrate more on getting the sharpest possible pictures - at the cost of other factors which are more important imho.

Which body are you thinking of (did I miss this info)?

Regards, Robert

 

[Simon Larbalestier]

I too prefer the look of the 50 and 35 pre ASPH Luxes. Together they compliment each other.

What year is your 50 Lux?


thanks

HL

Harry that lens is back in Bangkok, i'll the check serial number check when i get back
next month - it's the one an E43 with the separate hood.

Simon

 

[FrankS]

Depends how you define "Leica-like". It could the glow you get from an uncoated Summar, or the clinical sharpness you get with the latest aspherical 35 or 50.

 

[FPjohn]

There is no disputing taste

There is no disputing taste

Hello:

My most "Leica" lens is DR Summicron followed by a 75mm Lux which has a look only matched, at small aperture, by a ltm 100mm Sonnar.

yours
Frank

 

[Dougg]

Haven't seen anyone mention the v.1 pre-asph 35 'Cron... my primary Leica lens since I bought it new. I still have little experience with others, but do like the look of that lens. And yet this doesn't stop me wanting a new 35 'Lux ASPH just for a different kind of look! 😀

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

This can either relate to a technically superior lens, or one that has a high degree--the most in fact--character.

Napoleon, Anne Coulter, Groucho Marx, W.C. Fields, John McEnroe, Marilyn Manson, Chris Farley, Dean Martin, Bugs Bunny and Cheech & Chong all have character. Which kind are you looking for?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

There is a cult following for the lens mentioned above, and many "swear" that it is sharper than the non-DR Summicron. Some claim that it brings out the Leica glow, simmilar to what a Summitar lens does.

I keep on trying the DR out. I'm not quite sold on it yet. I have the tabbed 50 Summicron, and I did a comparison shoot, and there was something I didn't like about the DR, and it may have been precisely that, that it was "too sharp": the blur didn't seem to be as nice as with my tabbed 'cron, and nowhere as nice as the Summitar's or Summar's.

Sometimes too much salt isn't the thing for you, I guess.