New Glass-v- OldQuestion

[kennethcooke]

I read many comments on the virtues of new Leica lenses v older models. I have recently bought a 35mm f2 Summicron asph to complement my newly acquired M6 classic both of which are second hand in mint condition but he Summicron is latest generation.

It would seem to me that film emulsions and film manufacture have moved on with time and I assume that Leica technicians consider this when they design their lenses. That being so would it be safe to assume a modern generation lens will give the best performance with modern film stock?

If this is the case what would be the justification in buying earlier lenses other than price point. Or am I missing something? I mention this in passing as I am considering a 50mm lens to complement my system. If the above scenario is fact then I can only assume my ideal choice to be a 50mm Summicron?

I am sorry it is sort of three questions in reality

 

[40oz]

In my humble and unqualified opinion? Lenses project an image. Film captures an image. Films are all different, in that they all capture colors differently. Some people prefer more vivid colors than others, so film companies oblige, offering films that render colors with an unreal vividness as well as films that have a more natural response. Natural in this case refers to the human eye+brain.

Given that films across a single company's line may vary in response to light, one would be hard-pressed to assume that the newest option was the best from any rational stand. If there was some sort of ideal "best," that applied to everyone, there wouldn't be multiple 400 speed B&W films from a single company, much less a whole range of color options all bearing the same brand name. I think it's safe to say that films are manufactured as best as can be, but there is nothing about the images they capture that is inherently different and better than they were ten years ago or twenty. Newer style B&W films don't need new lenses to show their full potential any more than newer bodies really need newer hands pushing the shutter.

Lenses are more durable and expensive to produce, so not many companies produce multiple versions of every focal length. But most lens makers produce multiple versions of 50mm lenses, to address both personal taste and intended usage. These products are priced according to production cost and demand. It's no more valid to say that the most expensive lens is the "best" than to assume the most expensive film is the "best."

People buy used lenses for reasons of aesthetics as much as price. And since any well-made lens loses nothing* with age as long as it is cared for, there is often little incentive to buy new. It's not like nobody took any good pictures in the '40's.

*older Leica lenses do seem subject to fogging, and apparently suffered from rather soft coatings that don't always survive unblemished. I'm going to laugh and laugh when I'm 80 and see ads offering "turn-of-the-century Asph Summilux with slight fogging and a few cleaning marks." 😀

 

[NickTrop]

My favorite lens/film combo is Kodak UC Professional and a 1930's Summar. Just like the way that film looks when used with that lens.

 

[Matthew Allen]

I already posted in your photo.net thread so I won't repeat myself, but here are a few photos from my 1951 Summitar. Old glass has its uses.













These shots would be sharper with a modern Summicron but the Summitar renders beautifully. I have a 1934 Summar too and it can be quite lovely. I don't have any really good samples but here's someone who knows how to get the best out of it:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48220

Matthew

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Kenneth,

It's the 'look'.

Some older lenses suit some people better for some subjects -- hence also reintroductions (albeit recomputed) such as the current C-Sonnar 1,5/50.

Objectively (sharpness, contrast, image flatness, illumination) the newer designs are almost invariably superior. Subjectively -- the 'look' -- some people prefer the older lenses.

I don't think that changes to film make much difference -- why would they? Nor do I believe that Leica lenses are especially prone to haze or cleaning marks: it's just that there are a lot of very old Leica lenses still in use, so although the percentage with problems is probably the same as any other manufacturer, the absolute numbers are greater. Also, because the lenses are so valuable, people sell (or clean up) lenses that might be chucked out if they were not worth so much in good order.

In large format, I have or have had old lenses by Schneider, Zeiss, Voigtländer, Kodak and others, and by the time a lens is several decades old, haze and cleaning marks are about as common as with Leica lenses of a similar vintage. My 50/1.2 Canon was certainly pretty hazy when I got it, and I've had a fair number of FSU lenses with the same problem.

Finally, there are always people who see what they want to see...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Tom A]

I concur with Roger on this. It is the "look" of a lens, how it "draws" the image.
Modern, multicoated, aspherical lens are invariably "sharper" than the older version of these lenses. Not necessarily in lines per milimeter, but in appearance. The higher contrast. particularly in color imges, gives an impression of sharpness. I have a multitude of lenses (the effact of being very reluctant to part with anything!) and as I am a bl/w shooter exclusively, I tend to favor the smoother look of some of the older lenses. A modern, aspheric tend to have a very "graphic" look which might work well for some subjects, but not for my "style" of photography.
The Summicron 35's all have a diferent character. The first version. 8 element is soft wide open, particulraly the edges, but it has a very pleasing smoothness to its center. The version II and III ar better at the edges and retains the center smoothness. The version IV, known as the "King of Bokeh" is a good overall lens and. yes, the Bokeh is pleasant enough, though I rarely pay attention to it! Heresy, I know, but I came from the school of photography were this was regared as the "fuzzy stuff" you get when you did not stop down enough!
The Asph Leica 35's are extremely sharp, particularly wide open and if this is important to you, either one (35/1,4 or 35.2) will do you well. They are also prone to flare, the 35f1.4 Asph more so which is one of the "penalties" for this design.
All lens design is a matter of judgement, high speed versus exagerated optical deviations or a slower lens where these "foibles" can be corrected more easily.
Also take into consideration that most of the Leica lens designs are now "getting on in age". particularly lenses like the Summicron 50. It is a design that has been massaged over the last 50 years and though very good, even by todays standard, it is no match for something like the Planar 50mm f2.0 from Zeiss in the ZM mount.
Lenses like the 50f1.4 Asph and the Summicron 75f2 is probably at the apex of modern lens technology and they prove that Leica can do incredible lenses when they set their mind to it. However, for the rest of their lens line, I am more impressed with the offerings from Zeiss or CV.
A lens like the 21mm f4.5 C Biogon is superior to anything either CV or Leica offers (at the moment!) and the 35f2 Planar ZM is giving the Summicron 35 a good run for the money.
To put it bluntly, as a rangefinder shooter, I have never had it so good as the current times when it comes to choices of focal length, speed and quality for my M's!

 

[ampguy]

The answer

The answer

is a definitive yes.

There is no other lens, especially those mentioned below, that match the 35/2 cron asph as far as accuracy, true color rendition, and lack of SA, Coma, and distortion.

Great lens choice.

I read many comments on the virtues of new Leica lenses v older models. I have recently bought a 35mm f2 Summicron asph to complement my newly acquired M6 classic both of which are second hand in mint condition but he Summicron is latest generation.

It would seem to me that film emulsions and film manufacture have moved on with time and I assume that Leica technicians consider this when they design their lenses. That being so would it be safe to assume a modern generation lens will give the best performance with modern film stock?

If this is the case what would be the justification in buying earlier lenses other than price point. Or am I missing something? I mention this in passing as I am considering a 50mm lens to complement my system. If the above scenario is fact then I can only assume my ideal choice to be a 50mm Summicron?

I am sorry it is sort of three questions in reality