That Leica Glow !!!

[gb hill]

Whether you call it a glow or just flair you can't deny there is something special about older Leica lenses. I even remember an artical in the UK version of Black&White a couple years back by Roger & Frances on the Leica glow. So Leica flair, Leica glow, I like it, so I want to see it.

 

[gb hill]

 

[gb hill]

All with a 50 Elmar 3:5 (1946)

 

[Penzes]

Quite nice rendering. Rigid Summicorn is simply great! 😀

 

[Sanders McNew]

From last week: Foma 200 through a Summitar.

 

[NathanJD]

Version 1 Elmarit 90/2.8 folowed by Collapsible 50 cron. i love them! nothing compares to this look 😀.

 

[NathanJD]

In fact i think my old 90/2.8 Elmarit even has Leica glow in colour

 

[ampguy]

summilux 35 @ 1.4

summilux 35 @ 1.4

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

Whether you call it a glow or just flair you can't deny there is something special about older Leica lenses. I even remember an artical in the UK version of Black&White a couple years back by Roger & Frances on the Leica glow. So Leica flair, Leica glow, I like it, so I want to see it.

While I do agree with your point/observation, I would suggest that the description can apply to a variety of early lenses - from quite a few different manufacturers!
Dave.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While I do agree with your point/observation, I would suggest that the description can apply to a variety of early lenses - from quite a few different manufacturers!
Dave.

Dear Dave,

Indeed. One of the points we made, as far as I recall, was that the 'glow' was at least partly down to overexposure with guessed exposures. Also, cynically, to the fact that people who could afford them often bought Leica lenses once they had become good enough photographers to persuade themselves that they were worth the money. The 'glow' was the photographer, not the lens.

And there's less absolute rubbish around from Leica than from some of their erstwhile competitors.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Mackinaw]

....One of the points we made, as far as I recall, was that the 'glow' was at least partly down to overexposure with guessed exposures.

Back when I was on LUG, one of the contributors made the comment that the Leica glow was due to nothing more than "uncorrected lens aberrations." Probably more true than most of us think.

Jim B.

 

[gb hill]

While I do agree with your point/observation, I would suggest that the description can apply to a variety of early lenses - from quite a few different manufacturers!
Dave.

Hey! I'm not biased, post whatever you got from whatever lens you have. 🙂

 

[gb hill]

Dear Dave,

Indeed. One of the points we made, as far as I recall, was that the 'glow' was at least partly down to overexposure with guessed exposures. Also, cynically, to the fact that people who could afford them often bought Leica lenses once they had become good enough photographers to persuade themselves that they were worth the money. The 'glow' was the photographer, not the lens.

And there's less absolute rubbish around from Leica than from some of their erstwhile competitors.

Cheers,

R.

Roger you should go back into your archives & dig that article out. I believe it was a summicron you & Frances had (can't remember) but I do remember the article said the lens was so good for the Leica glow you guys would fuss over who used it. I also remember Francis usually won!😀

 

[gb hill]

Back when I was on LUG, one of the contributors made the comment that the Leica glow was due to nothing more than "uncorrected lens aberration." Probably more true than most of us think.

Jim B.

Whatever it is I can't explain, but I know the elmar gives me a look that I can't get with any of my voigtlander or other lenses!

 

[maddoc]

Back when I was on LUG, one of the contributors made the comment that the Leica glow was due to nothing more than "uncorrected lens aberration." Probably more true than most of us think.

Jim B.

That's what I think, too. 🙂

Glow from a 40/2.0 M-Rokkor CLE:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger you should go back into your archives & dig that article out. I believe it was a summicron you & Frances had (can't remember) but I do remember the article said the lens was so good for the Leica glow you guys would fuss over who used it. I also remember Francis usually won!😀

Dear Greg,

You may be conflating two articles here. We have only two Summicrons (75 and 90) and Frances rarely uses either; we got rid of the 50 and 35 long ago, because neither of us cared for them much. In ay case, our tastes in focal lengths are quite divergent: the only lens we fought over, the WATE, we couldn't afford.

Unfortunately it would take hours to dig out the magazine, in a VERY cold storage room (I've just moved the studio inside and the storage into the old studio), and the text was on an old computer that died, so I'd have to go through stacks of Wordstar floppies to find it that way.

As far as I recall, we said that although there did seem to be a 'Leica glow', there had to be a substantial rational component as well as the mystical part.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Keith]

How about some Nikon glow .... the lens that came on my black dial S2 is pretty glowy though not so sharp!

50mm f1.4 sc

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

I can get what you call glow from my canon 50mm 1.2 too
Especially in portraits with yellow filter...

 

[marke]

I don't know what contributes to the Leica glow, but I do know that I like what my lux 50 pre-asph does to my greyhound and a roll of Tri-X. 🙂

 

[Sparrow]

The first M Elmar, I always assumed it was the dreaded haze that did it, this one certainly needs cleaning