normal lens for monochrom

[sebastel]

guys,
i'm expecting a monochrom.
now, i think i already own the lens that will stay on it most of the time ... it will be
- the zm sonnar or
- the uncoated summitar or
- the coated (6 blade) summitar.
or do you recommend differently?
curious about your immediate reaction. please, if any idea comes to your mind - just post it. don't think twice. it's alright.

really kind regards,
s.
(sometimes a grumpy one, but not today)

 

[Godfrey]

guys,
i'm expecting a monochrom.
now, i think i already own the lens that will stay on it most ofthe time ... it will be
- the zm sonnar or
- the uncoated summitar or
- the coated (6 blade) summitar.
or do you recommend differently?
curious about your immediate reaction. please, if any idea comestoyourmind - just post it. don't think twice. it's alright.

Voigtländer Nokton 40mm f/1.4 SC :: one of my favorite focal lengths, and the SC version does lovely things in B&W while still being a modern lens. I'd file the cam tab so it brings up 35mm framelines too.

G

 

[hipsterdufus]

I love my Summitar, but the filter situation is less than ideal. What do you plan on shooting with the M monochrome? The Collapsible Summicron has a somewhat similar look to the Summitar, but at least it takes the easily found 39mm filters. Just a thought.

 

[sebastel]

GREAT.
big big thank you both.

i plan it to be a 'normal' lens. the one to go. my style is....... wow, never thought of giving it a name .
arbitrary? street, encounters, city scape. rarely get out of shanghai.

 

[user237428934]

Can someone enlighten me why I should buy a camera that gives superb sharpness and put a vintage-lens or vintage-style lens (C Sonnar) in front of it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Can someone enlighten me why I should buy a camera that gives superb sharpness and put a vintage-lens or vintage-style lens (C Sonnar) in front of it?

Because you like the results. What other reason is there for putting ANY lens on ANY camera?

I'm a lot more puzzled by the original question. Why has the OP (apparently arbitrarily) listed these three lenses? Why not a 50/2 Taylor, Taylor Hobson? Or a 50/1.2 Canon? Or a 50/1.8 Yashinon? Or an (original 1950s) 50/1.5 Nokton, with a suitable adapter unless you can find the super-rare LTM version? Or a Jupiter-8? How can any of us say what will work best for his style of photography? To say nothing of answering the to me impenetrable question of why anyone would use digital instead of film for B+W?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

Can someone enlighten me why I should buy a camera that gives superb sharpness and put a vintage-lens or vintage-style lens (C Sonnar) in front of it?

Tom,

Vintage glass can provide softer (less) contrast and a retro look; soft corners wide open for portraits; to display lens signature/character. Some vintage glass have very sharp center sharpness BTW, but not in the corners like a modern lens. Example: 50 Rigid.

I use a 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM on my Monochrom, it's a very sharp lens, but modern ASPH glass perhaps has an edge, especially in the corners.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

To say nothing of answering the to me impenetrable question of why anyone would use digital instead of film for B+W?

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

Only speaking for myself, but I bought a Monochrom to explore digital as a separate medium, and I intend on continuing to shoot mucho B&W film, but the Leica Monochrom can provide better/superior High ISO performance over film.

Cal

 

[jaapv]

Canon 1.8/50 LTmM or 2.8/35 LTM. I bought them by accident, but they sing on the MM

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, Cal. I fully (well, fairly fully) understand your point. All I meant was that it's next to impossible to answer such questions (lens choice, Monochrom over film) for someone else (hence the 'for me'). I cannot dispute your answer for a nanosecond, and I have no doubt it is right for you and presumably for many others: it's just that I wouldn't do it myself.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thompsonks]

@Tom & Roger:

Ashwin Rao has explained why he's shifted to vintage/classic lenses on MM, and his point (and his examples) are interesting:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/...ths-with-the-leica-m-monochrom-by-ashwin-rao/

The point is to take advantage of the expanded tonal gradations of the MM sensor without buying into the 'clinical' look of some modern lenses. It's not an effort to imitate BW film imagery; it's a different and interesting style.

@ OP: If you like 50mm, then a good way to start is with the ZM Sonnar-C. At larger apertures, it gives a 'classic' look; stopped down it's very 'today.'

Kirk

 

[user237428934]

Tom,

Vintage glass can provide softer (less) contrast and a retro look; soft corners wide open for portraits; to display lens signature/character. Some vintage glass have very sharp center sharpness BTW, but not in the corners like a modern lens. Example: 50 Rigid.

I use a 35/1.8 Nikkor in LTM on my Monochrom, it's a very sharp lens, but modern ASPH glass perhaps has an edge, especially in the corners.

Cal

What I had in mind was the fact that people buy the most expensive Ms whose key characteristic is to deliver sharper images and then degrade all this with a not so sharp lens. But I understand the point with vintage lenses who have a very good center sharpness.

I had the Zeiss C-Sonnar, tried to like it and replaced it after one and a half year with a Zeiss Planar 50 because it's the overall sharper lens.

 

[jaapv]

why anyone would use digital instead of film for B+W?

Cheers,

R.

Because I like the results 😛. I find that the output from the MM is far more to my taste than any film. And even if one disagrees with my taste, there can be no dispute that the prints from an Monochrome look quite different from any film ever spawned.

 

[jaapv]

What I had in mind was the fact that people buy the most expensive Ms whose key characteristic is to deliver sharper images and then degrade all this with a not so sharp lens. But I understand the point with vintage lenses who have a very good center sharpness.

I had the Zeiss C-Sonnar, tried to like it and replaced it after one and a half year with a Zeiss Planar 50 because it's the overall sharper lens.

Make no mistake, old lenses can be tack sharp, especially if a colour filter is used to eliminate chromatic aberrations.

 

[Calzone]

What I had in mind was the fact that people buy the most expensive Ms whose key characteristic is to deliver sharper images and then degrade all this with a not so sharp lens. But I understand the point with vintage lenses who have a very good center sharpness.

I had the Zeiss C-Sonnar, tried to like it and replaced it after one and a half year with a Zeiss Planar 50 because it's the overall sharper lens.

Tom,

I see your point: Why compromise the step in resolution towards medium format, but I think some of us are seeking that magic combination. Of course this is all subjective.

BTW I love the 35/1.8 Nikkor on the Monochrom, but I also have a 28 Cron and a 50 Lux ASPH.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Sorry, Cal. I fully (well, fairly fully) understand your point. All I meant was that it's next to impossible to answer such questions (lens choice, Monochrom over film) for someone else (hence the 'for me'). I cannot dispute your answer for a nanosecond, and I have no doubt it is right for you and presumably for many others: it's just that I wouldn't do it myself.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, no need to apologize and thanks for the response.

Truth is that I resisted digital for a long time and the Monochrom pushed me over the edge. I thought I was a B&W film only die-hard, but it seems that Leica built the perfect camera for a guy like me, but I also know that it does not suit many others. I figure I'm a lucky guy who's dream came true.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Because I like the results 😛. I find that the output from the MM is far more to my taste than any film. And even if one disagrees with my taste, there can be no dispute that the prints from an Monochrome look quite different from any film ever spawned.

I still shoot film, but the Monochrom's rendering I find very pleasing. I like the differences. I like both, not sure if I have any preference.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

@Tom & Roger:

Ashwin Rao has explained why he's shifted to vintage/classic lenses on MM, and his point (and his examples) are interesting:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2013/...ths-with-the-leica-m-monochrom-by-ashwin-rao/

The point is to take advantage of the expanded tonal gradations of the MM sensor without buying into the 'clinical' look of some modern lenses. It's not an effort to imitate BW film imagery; it's a different and interesting style.

@ OP: If you like 50mm, then a good way to start is with the ZM Sonnar-C. At larger apertures, it gives a 'classic' look; stopped down it's very 'today.'

Kirk

Kirk,

Thanks for the link.

Cal

 

[Godfrey]

GREAT.
big big thank you both.

i plan it to be a 'normal' lens. the one to go. my style is....... wow, never thought of giving it a name .
arbitrary? street, encounters, city scape. rarely get out of shanghai.

Normal for a Leica, to me, covers the range from about 35mm to 60mm focal lengths. I tend to like using a 40mm, a wide-normal, as my 'to go' lens quite a lot.

(But on the M9, to my amusement, I tend to choose the Nokton 50mm f/1.5 most of the time.... so much for consistency. ;-)

G

 

[Godfrey]

What I had in mind was the fact that people buy the most expensive Ms whose key characteristic is to deliver sharper images and then degrade all this with a not so sharp lens. ...

From your statements, sharpness is very important to you. It's not so important to many other folks.

I try to pick a camera body that will image faithfully what a lens projects. I pick a lens based on what I like/want/need for a given visual idea ... which isn't always centered around sharpness and contrast.

The MM body does a wonderful job of capturing nuances of a lens' imaging in a monochrome digital image, whether the lens is a state of the art razor sharp thing or a vintage softie. Or even a pin hole or zone plate: I have a Skink pinhole kit to use with all of my interchangeable lens cameras now.

G