Unrealistic expectations and perceptions

[Roger Hicks]

Collapsible Summicrons, according one one recent thread, are rarely much good any more (haze, cleaning marks). According to others, many FSU lenses (copies of pre-World War Two Zeiss designs) are just as good as their modern counterparts.

Does anyone else find this curious? Are people seeing what they want to see? Do they have unrealistically high expectations (of near perfection) for Leica, but lower the bar for FSU?

Different examples of lenses that are a few decades old are bound to show wide variation, depending on how they've been treated (and especially if they have been incompetently 'repaired'). But given the choice of a clean Summicron and a clean 50/2 Jupiter, I'd not find it hard to choose.

And from my experience, there's not much comparison between the FSU 50/1.5 and ANY modern 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 in decent condition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[itf]

But given the choice of a clean Summicron and a clean 50/2 Jupiter, I'd not find it hard to choose.

Me either, the one I can afford is going to give me far better photos by virtue of being able to use it. 😉

 

[Silva Lining]

Do they have unrealistically high expectations (of near perfection) for Leica, but lower the bar for FSU?

That's it exactly, people are surprised when thy can see imperfection in a Leitz product, but will consider a Jupiter or industar "Surprisingly good considering"... It's all to do with a range of perceptions about the product and where it comes from (German preceision vs Russian Communist functionality ?) as well as the prices paid to attain it (rather than the value)

 

[Anupam]

And from my experience, there's not much comparison between the FSU 50/1.5 and ANY modern 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 in decent condition.

I suppose it's sample variation, but the one FSU lens that knocked my socks off and that I have always regretted selling was a Jupiter 3. I've been less than impressed with older Nikkors and Canons with some cleaning marks etc but that J3 gave my brand new Noktons (both 40 and 50) a run for the money. I haven't used Summiluxes, though, only crons.

 

[Robin P]

One day I tried a simple experiment with an old FSU 50mm lens that looked very "uncoated". Before & after shots with just the addition of a Hoya HMC UV filter were so astonishingly different that since then I will only use older lenses for "effect" - certainly don't trust them for a serious photo.
Our forefathers were right to just take photos "with the sun behind your shoulder" but today's wonderful multicoatings mean that joe public unthinkingly takes shots against the light and without even a hood.

If you are going to use vintage equipment, use it as was originally intended. After all one wouldn't expect to drive 400 miles of motorway in a day with an Austin 7 but today's cars manage such a feat without murmour.

Cheers, Robin

 

[Dan States]

Collapsible Summicrons, according one one recent thread, are rarely much good any more (haze, cleaning marks). According to others, many FSU lenses (copies of pre-World War Two Zeiss designs) are just as good as their modern counterparts.

Does anyone else find this curious? Are people seeing what they want to see? Do they have unrealistically high expectations (of near perfection) for Leica, but lower the bar for FSU?

Different examples of lenses that are a few decades old are bound to show wide variation, depending on how they've been treated (and especially if they have been incompetently 'repaired'). But given the choice of a clean Summicron and a clean 50/2 Jupiter, I'd not find it hard to choose.

And from my experience, there's not much comparison between the FSU 50/1.5 and ANY modern 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 in decent condition.

Cheers,

R.

I've been up and down the "Lens Quality" ladder and in middle age am finding that for black and white photography most of what we call "improvements" are just increases in contrast. My 1930's Summar has become one of my most used lenses because it is small, very sharp and renders contrast in a way that is easy to manage in a hybrid film/digital work flow. This image was made at full aperture on FP4.

 

[splitimageview]

Collapsible Summicrons, according one one recent thread, are rarely much good any more (haze, cleaning marks).

IMHO nice ones really aren't all that rare. Speaking of nice glass, not barrel cosmetics. What thread are you referring to?

 

[brachal]

Given a choice between a clean Summicron and a clean Jupiter-8, I'd take the Summicron. Then I'd take $70 and buy the Jupiter as well. Part of the enthusiasm for FSU lenses is caused, IMHO, because people want to feel like they got a world-beater for under $100.

I won't say that a good Jupiter or Industar is better than a modern Leica lens. They probably aren't. I don't own any modern Leica lenses, so I can't speak from experience. I do feel that Jupiters and Industars (when good, clean or whatever) are pretty good lenses. When Raid Amin or Brian Sweeny, or some other noble soul, posts an objective lens comparison, the Jupiters usually hold their own -- at least against their contemporaries. I shot a few rolls at a parade awhile back with a Leica 2.8 LTM Elmar and a Jupiter-8. When I got images back, my wife, a professional photographer for 15 years, asked, "Which camera was that? That's a really nice lens." It was the Jupiter-8 roll. She liked the Leica images, but the lens didn't cause her to say, "wow, what was that!" in a blind lens comparison.

 

[sirius]

Old lenses give an old signature to the photos they produce, no matter who made them.

 

[myoptic3]

I agree w/ Sirius, and trust me, the old lenses are as sharp as anything made today (assuming you get a good one). Most every lens manufacturer makes very good to great 50 mm lenses, and Photoshop can bring up contrast and sharpness so even an average lens looks fine. But if you want that classic lens signature, you have to use a classic lens. There is a reason the old Leica glass is more expensive than the newest lenses of other manufacturers. That particular look is valued and unique.

 

[Athos6]

Psychology, one lens is rarely better then another, its more a factor of who’s operating it. If you need an enlarged picture and a loupe to tell one from another then for all in tense and purposes they are the same. What Leica lives off of is psychology; there are just as many old cameras from other companies that are reliable. People want to believe that their $3000 black paint M3 is special, and that they are special. I’m not exempt from this; I got my M2 because it looks cool, and more than likely I’ll look cool using it…at least to my wife…I hope…maybe…🙂 Lenses fall into 2 categories good and bad, buy the cheapest good one you can, only spend more on the neat bad lenses with “character” IMO

 

[Gid]

I agree with the psychology comment. There's a lot of balderdash written about lenses where the starting point is who made it, how much it costs and how rare it is. Modern day lenses appear to be, in general, so close in performance that it would be difficult to tell them apart in a blind test. Paying more for a lens (new) may get you higher QC, but that is not guaranteed (see threads by Xray on his Leica experiences). In actual fact I would expect machines to be better at producing consistent quality than humans. However, regardless of whether the lens is hand built or machine produced, QC is ultimately in the hands of humans. 🙁

I think a lot of expectations are driven by cost - some people know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Dan, Bill and Digitalintrigue,

Well, yes. No arguments with any of you. Sorry: can't remember the anti-Summicron thread (or I'd have posted it before).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

I agree w/ Sirius, and trust me, the old lenses are as sharp as anything made today (assuming you get a good one). Most every lens manufacturer makes very good to great 50 mm lenses, and Photoshop can bring up contrast and sharpness so even an average lens looks fine. But if you want that classic lens signature, you have to use a classic lens. There is a reason the old Leica glass is more expensive than the newest lenses of other manufacturers. That particular look is valued and unique.

Well, no, they have got better in objective terms. Otherwise why would anyone ever make new lenses?

Sonnars were designed to give more contrast (at the expense of less ultimate resolution) in the days before coating. Choosing a Sonnar today (as I have) is, therefore, a question of 'look' rather than technical quality (MTF, distortion). That's fine, but it's unrealistic to pretend that Adobe or anyone else can turn a 1936 Elmar into a 2007 Summicron -- or even an early 90/2 into a late 90/2 (and I've tried both side by side).

Also, it's not realistic to pretend that a modern 1,5/50 Sonnar is equivalent to one from the 50s.

Cheers,

R.

 

[varjag]

Roger,

But given the choice of a clean Summicron and a clean 50/2 Jupiter, I'd not find it hard to choose.

And from my experience, there's not much comparison between the FSU 50/1.5 and ANY modern 50/1.5 or 50/1.4 in decent condition.

Well, up to late 1950s Leica was still playing catch up in optics to pre-war Zeiss. The little R&D resources it had after WW2 probably were all allocated towards M3 project.

Summar, Summitar, Summarit, original Elmar are all markedly inferior to 1.5/50 Sonnar, at any aperture. The only 1st. version Summilux 50 sample I tried was about on par with my Jupiter 1.5/50. Best f/2 pictures from Summicron coll. I've seen here (Brian's and some other folks) are OK, but again nothing to write home about after f/1.5 Sonnar. A friend of mine also has a nice collapsible Summicron and a 1.5/50 Jupiter, he finds the latter a better lens.

Newer (1960s and on) generations of Leitz lenses are improvement over Sonnars in about every aspect. Well maybe except the look 😉

Of course above is only concerning the optics; mechanically FSU lenses (and wartime Zeiss production) are no match to Leitz.

I actually remember reading your piece on equipment in late Fotomagazin, where you mentioned J3 is not something worth bothering. Since I generally value your advice, and since I always had bad luck with Jupiter-8s, it sounded plausible that faster version is only worse. Hence I didn't bother for a long time but, got a Jupiter-3 later just to have a complete Jupiter line-up.

I was impressed immediately, it turned out to be the best lens in said line-up. Very much usable wide open, and at f/2 it is better than my CV Ultron 35mm.

Perhaps I should send it to you for a quick test: the best way to sort it out. If you find it unusable then it would be my low standards, but if it's good it's good, and not just my handwaving 🙂

 

[brachal]

Speaking of tests ... The link is to Raid's 50mm lens test. I think it's one of the best RFF threads ever. At least one of the best that wasn't about camera bags. 🙂

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32155&highlight=50mm+test

 

[ferider]

Sonnars were designed to give more contrast (at the expense of less ultimate resolution) in the days before coating. Choosing a Sonnar today (as I have) is, therefore, a question of 'look' rather than technical quality (MTF, distortion).
: : :
Also, it's not realistic to pretend that a modern 1,5/50 Sonnar is equivalent to one from the 50s.

1) Sonnars & Ernostars were designed and used for "look" AND SIZE.

2) Lenses have gradually developed. The Zeiss Sonnar/Opton versions as well as the Jupiters (different coatings over time), or the Canon/Nikkors. IMO, one has to be quite specific when using terms like WWII area vs. the 50s, vs "modern", etc. A real Opton or Nikkor from the late 50s is different but quite comparable to the new C-Sonnar. What means modern ? Is the M-Hexanon 90/2.8 (as Ernostar) modern and compares to the new ZM Sonnar 85/2 ?

3) WRT to expectations, it's mostly emotional anyways, depending on monetary value, and how easily a buyer can afford it, etc. Otherwise Leica would not be able to ask for their modern lenses as much as they do.

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I actually remember reading your piece on equipment in late Fotomagazin, where you mentioned J3 is not something worth bothering. Since I generally value your advice, and since I always had bad luck with Jupiter-8s, it sounded plausible that faster version is only worse. Hence I didn't bother for a long time but, got a Jupiter-3 later just to have a complete Jupiter line-up.

I was impressed immediately, it turned out to be the best lens in said line-up. Very much usable wide open, and at f/2 it is better than my CV Ultron 35mm.

Perhaps I should send it to you for a quick test: the best way to sort it out. If you find it unusable then it would be my low standards, but if it's good it's good, and not just my handwaving 🙂

Dear Yevgeni,

[if I may; my wife is Yevgenia]

Well, there's luck. I'm surprised the Jupiter-3 is any good, but maybe I've had very bad ones and you've had very good ones. Even at that, have you compared it with a current C-Sonnar?

I'm not calling you a liar; I'm just wondering how far any of us is mis-remembering. (I do not deny that I can do this).

Incidentally. Foto Magazin ceased trading owing me seversal hundred bucks!

Cheers,

R.

 

[amateriat]

I suppose I was lucky enough, in my life, to almost exclusively deal in lenses made past 1970. From my Yashica 5000E Lynx (my first-ever 35mm camera), through a string of up-to-date SLR systems, to my current Hexars and M-Hex lenses. They've all had single- or multi-coated optics, and, for the most part, they've all been at least Pretty Darn Good, my M-Hex glass, IMO, being the best, but that opinion might be at least slightly clouded by the fact that they're the lenses I currently have at hand. But I love what I see from this stuff, save for when I've blown a shot; timing, focus, whatever.

When I went to Leica Gallery in SoHo a few years back for an exhibit of the last photo project of Inge Morath before her death, I was so swept away by the work, and the quality of the prints. But what I was seeing before me was a joint effort: Morath's warm and discerning eye, her printer's deft hand in the darkoom, and all the film-handling in between. She worked with the Leica because she knew the Leica well. Knowing a camera and system, in this case, goes a bit beyond sniffing MTF charts and the like, and comes from not changing cameras and systems like you change socks or underwear (or brooding over whether the computer you're uploading your files to this week has all its necessary updates...yeah, ask me how I know this).

If anything, I think it's about knowing your gear will hit minimum expectations, no matter what. If you, after having a little too much fun the night before, can fumble for your camera(s) from its bag the following morning, load a roll of film in it (or, if you insist, manage to eject the stuffed memory card from it) without F'ing things up, reload, and set yourself up for photographing without even looking at your gear, you might have a somewhat-sane relationship with your gear.

Then again, I might just be full of it, and am just looking for an argument. 🙂

It took a long time to reach the point where I don't think much at all about the gear I don't have, nor let it get in the way of getting the pictures I wanted. I didn't have a Zen moment (at least I don't think I did): I just realized I couldn't afford every damn toy, new or otherwise, I thought might improve my photographic outcomes. I gambled on what I thought would be the best bang for the photographic buck for me, and, IMO, was lucky enough to have chosen well. Most of my issues now revolve around having enough film in the house, chemistry for the film I soup myself, and ink and paper for my printer. And time...yep, that's the big one.

I'm not saying hardware et al isn't important. It is, to a point. And that point is how well your really know that hardware...enough to have it get out of your way when you see something that you must get down on film (or whatever). If the gear gets in the way, it sucks. (Which can be a problem with lenses, BTW...it can resolve in a way that sets your heart a-quiver, but then there's the matter of the camera you have to bolt it to...)


Barrett

 

[Krosya]

Dear Yevgeni,

[if I may; my wife is Yevgenia]

Well, there's luck. I'm surprised the Jupiter-3 is any good, but maybe I've had very bad ones and you've had very good ones. Even at that, have you compared it with a current C-Sonnar?

I'm not calling you a liar; I'm just wondering how far any of us is mis-remembering. (I do not deny that I can do this).

Incidentally. Foto Magazin ceased trading owing me seversal hundred bucks!

Cheers,

R.

Roger, Roger,
Here we go again. Before it was about Canon 50/1.2, now it's about J-3 and other russian lenses.
Once again, I have to disagree - I own 3 russian lenses - j-3, j-9 and I-22. All are far from great condition. Cleanning marks and even chips on glass of the J-3's front element. And yet - I manage to get a pretty good results. Well, let pics do the talking :
J-3 and j-9 are here: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57599

and here is a photo from j-3:

and I-22 pics are here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58172

So, I'm not sure what kind of results you got from yours, but I can tell you that these lenses are very capable of great results.