Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
p.1410 #1Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
 |
||
 |
||
|
28cron
|
||
 |
||
|
50lux ASPH
|
||
 |
||
|
50lux ASPH
|
||
 |
||
|
28cron
|
||
 |
||
|
50lux ASPH
Feb 14, 2017 at 08:56 PM
p.1410 #2Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
The White Bridge by Werner Utsch, on Flickr
S 006, Apo-Elmar S 180/3.5
Feb 15, 2017 at 09:51 AM
p.1410 #4Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
low325 wrote:
Q day at the aquarium.
Nice view. I'm guessing that's La Jolla/Scripps Institution of Oceanography below? I wish I'd known there was an aquarium there! I spent a full day loafing around the beach with family late last year waiting for a late international flight out of SD. I suppose it is kind of obvious there might be now I think about it!
These were from a fairly grey October morning down at La Jolla with HP5+
We've all seen this one before
Scripps Pier
Q day at the aquarium.
Nice view. I'm guessing that's La Jolla/Scripps Institution of Oceanography below? I wish I'd known there was an aquarium there! I spent a full day loafing around the beach with family late last year waiting for a late international flight out of SD. I suppose it is kind of obvious there might be now I think about it!
These were from a fairly grey October morning down at La Jolla with HP5+
We've all seen this one before
Scripps Pier
Feb 15, 2017 at 09:25 PM
p.1410 #5Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Hi guys,
Great images.. I've been lurking but not posting. Haven't had much time for "fun" photography. Haven't actually touched my M-D in a while. And nothing I shoot with the SL pleases me enough to want to post.
The reason I've even been shooting with the SL at all lately (in my spare time) is that I'm testing the 50SL again (production copy/my own copy) and I'm curious if there is anything any of you want to see specifically? Since I know it's still hard to get. Though most of you are M users here.
Also will be testing it against the A7II and my 50ZA FE. So let me know if you want to know anything specific about the two lenses.
It'll be a while before I get anything up/out since I'm quite busy with other things and I'll be traveling a lot this month and next. But just thought I'd ask incase anyone was curious.
Great images.. I've been lurking but not posting. Haven't had much time for "fun" photography. Haven't actually touched my M-D in a while. And nothing I shoot with the SL pleases me enough to want to post.
The reason I've even been shooting with the SL at all lately (in my spare time) is that I'm testing the 50SL again (production copy/my own copy) and I'm curious if there is anything any of you want to see specifically? Since I know it's still hard to get. Though most of you are M users here.
Also will be testing it against the A7II and my 50ZA FE. So let me know if you want to know anything specific about the two lenses.
It'll be a while before I get anything up/out since I'm quite busy with other things and I'll be traveling a lot this month and next. But just thought I'd ask incase anyone was curious.
Feb 16, 2017 at 12:16 AM
p.1410 #6Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Tried some Kodak TMX out the other day, I found that I actually liked it and it scans in well. These first two are with the MP and Konica UC-Hexanon 35mm
KODK_TMX_02_17_18.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr
KODK_TMX_02_17_32.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr
These next few are on my M3 with the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Nokton on 20+ year expired Tri-X Pan 400 shot at 200.
KODK_TRIXP_01_17_9.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr
KODK_TRIXP_01_17_17.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr
KODK_TRIXP_01_17_19.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on Flickr
Still working on refining my M lens kit but I'm pretty close!
KODK_TMX_02_17_18.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on FlickrKODK_TMX_02_17_32.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on FlickrThese next few are on my M3 with the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.5 Nokton on 20+ year expired Tri-X Pan 400 shot at 200.
KODK_TRIXP_01_17_9.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on FlickrKODK_TRIXP_01_17_17.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on FlickrKODK_TRIXP_01_17_19.jpg by Abram Goglanian, on FlickrStill working on refining my M lens kit but I'm pretty close!
Feb 16, 2017 at 02:34 PM
p.1410 #7Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
With the days starting to get a bit longer again its nice being able to stop at the beach on the way home from work
Feb 16, 2017 at 08:11 PM
p.1410 #8Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
If one is only shooting film and debating between a 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH (the Pre-FLE version), what would make you swing one way over the other. I'm weighing the pros and cons and I keep arriving at a stalemate more or less.
Say you take the cost out of the equation.
Say you take the cost out of the equation.
Feb 16, 2017 at 08:52 PM
p.1410 #9Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
AbramG wrote:
If one is only shooting film and debating between a 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH (the Pre-FLE version), what would make you swing one way over the other. I'm weighing the pros and cons and I keep arriving at a stalemate more or less.
Say you take the cost out of the equation.
Both have considerable focus shift and somewhat nervous background. I would go for the summicron due to size/weight, and due to the fact that using the summilux wide open would be problematic (if it's not optimized for wide open).
Feb 16, 2017 at 09:00 PM
p.1410 #10Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
edwardkaraa wrote:
Say you take the cost out of the equation.Both have considerable focus shift and somewhat nervous background. I would go for the summicron due to size/weight, and due to the fact that using the summilux wide open would be problematic (if it's not optimized for wide open).
Good info from Edward. I loved the small size and build of the 35cron but if you shoot a lot in low light (wide open), the bokeh and blur can be quite harsh unless you are very close. Both are nice but if you are a low light shooter, the f/1.4 can be handy at times...
AbramG wrote
If one is only shooting film and debating between a 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH (the Pre-FLE version), what would make you swing one way over the other. I'm weighing the pros and cons and I keep arriving at a stalemate more or less.Say you take the cost out of the equation.
Good info from Edward. I loved the small size and build of the 35cron but if you shoot a lot in low light (wide open), the bokeh and blur can be quite harsh unless you are very close. Both are nice but if you are a low light shooter, the f/1.4 can be handy at times...
Feb 16, 2017 at 10:40 PM
|
p.1410 #11Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
The eternal battle: size vs speed
If you use a lens very often focus shift is easy to learn, I find. Helps to test on digital body, where in 20 minutes you can learn a lens pretty well for focusing, how much "english"
For film, speed is nice to have. At 35 DOF is manageable. I've looked at extensive comparisons of bokeh ZM35/1.4 vs FLE vs pre-FLE over at LUF, recently. I love the Leicas. ZM is very good, but the idea it's way nicer OOF, not to me. Very slightly nicer. Lately I've seen a ton of FLE shots on M10. I love it. Way nicer than 35 Cron Asph to my eye, honestly. The cron reminds me of my 90 Summarit. Modern. Great colors, but edgy.
Here Bokeh ZM35/1.4 vs FLEvs PreFLE
The interesting series starts halfway down that page. Some claim pre-FLE is better Bokeh, but they look very similar to me, as they should.
All that said, the cron is tiny, and great WO as far as sharpness.
Napping by unoh7, TE 90
Supreme by unoh7, 50 Cron
Tucker by unoh7, TE 90
Elkhorn Gulch by unoh7, CV 21 No profile
If you use a lens very often focus shift is easy to learn, I find. Helps to test on digital body, where in 20 minutes you can learn a lens pretty well for focusing, how much "english"
For film, speed is nice to have. At 35 DOF is manageable. I've looked at extensive comparisons of bokeh ZM35/1.4 vs FLE vs pre-FLE over at LUF, recently. I love the Leicas. ZM is very good, but the idea it's way nicer OOF, not to me. Very slightly nicer. Lately I've seen a ton of FLE shots on M10. I love it. Way nicer than 35 Cron Asph to my eye, honestly. The cron reminds me of my 90 Summarit. Modern. Great colors, but edgy. Here Bokeh ZM35/1.4 vs FLEvs PreFLE
The interesting series starts halfway down that page. Some claim pre-FLE is better Bokeh, but they look very similar to me, as they should.
All that said, the cron is tiny, and great WO as far as sharpness.
Napping by unoh7, TE 90
Supreme by unoh7, 50 Cron
Tucker by unoh7, TE 90
Elkhorn Gulch by unoh7, CV 21 No profile
Feb 17, 2017 at 12:43 AM
p.1410 #12Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Wonderful images on this page as usual. Particularly like the b&w film shots. Such great tonality.
I am in greece on a short holiday at the moment - a few images taken with the Leica M10 and the Zeiss ZM35/1.4 lens. I have no access to a colout corrected display until I am back and have virtually done no PP
Mount Olympus - Greece by Nicholas T, on Flickr
Bridge over Polifito Lake - Greece by Nicholas T, on Flickr
Agras by Nicholas T, on Flickr
I am in greece on a short holiday at the moment - a few images taken with the Leica M10 and the Zeiss ZM35/1.4 lens. I have no access to a colout corrected display until I am back and have virtually done no PP
Mount Olympus - Greece by Nicholas T, on FlickrBridge over Polifito Lake - Greece by Nicholas T, on FlickrAgras by Nicholas T, on FlickrFeb 17, 2017 at 03:22 AM
p.1410 #13Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Nico, Nice set. Very please and neutral color.
random street from SF.
25mm ZM M240
random street from SF.
25mm ZM M240
Feb 17, 2017 at 12:43 PM
p.1410 #14Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
edwardkaraa wrote:
Both have considerable focus shift and somewhat nervous background. I would go for the summicron due to size/weight, and due to the fact that using the summilux wide open would be problematic (if it's not optimized for wide open).
I had the 35 Summicron ASPH for a couple years and really enjoyed it, I know some dislike its rendering but I always got along pretty well with it and never found any objectionable focus shift with that lens, it wasn't blatantly obvious like the Zeiss C-Sonnar wide open (oh how I wish I could love that lens). I also previously had the Zeiss 35 Biogon for a couple years and really liked that one as well. I loved the rendering of the CV 35 f/1.2 but hated the size on M bodies unfortunately.
Right now I'm using a Konica UC-Hexanon 35 f/2 which is a bit of a rare beast and I love the rendering. But there's a part of me that gets annoyed at the .9m MFD as I find that with a 35 I get much closer, I don't mind .9-1m MFD on 50mm or longer though.
---------------------------------------------
Gary Clennan wrote:
Good info from Edward. I loved the small size and build of the 35cron but if you shoot a lot in low light (wide open), the bokeh and blur can be quite harsh unless you are very close. Both are nice but if you are a low light shooter, the f/1.4 can be handy at times...
I go back and forth on low-light with film. Most of my lenses are slow and I live in California where it's almost always perpetually sunny and I happen to like 400 ISO black and white film which means 1/1000 @ f/8 with a yellow filter on most days. But once I'm indoors or in a darker environment I appreciate having an f/2 or faster lens available.
---------------------------------------------
uhoh7 wrote:
The eternal battle: size vs speed
If you use a lens very often focus shift is easy to learn, I find. Helps to test on digital body, where in 20 minutes you can learn a lens pretty well for focusing, how much "english" For film, speed is nice to have. At 35 DOF is manageable. I've looked at extensive comparisons of bokeh ZM35/1.4 vs FLE vs pre-FLE over at LUF, recently. I love the Leicas. ZM is very good, but the idea it's way nicer OOF, not to me. Very slightly nicer. Lately I've seen a ton of FLE...Show more →
The Zeiss 35 1.4 would have been a contender if it wasn't so large. As I mentioned above, I loved the results from the CV 35 f/1.2 but I just couldn't get on with the size. From my understanding the 35 Summilux ASPH is roughly the size of the 28 Summicron and I did fine with that lens when I had it (I loved it in fact). I never really noticed the focus shift of the 35 Summicron, I'm sure it's there but it wasn't enough to be a bother on digital and I certainly never saw it on film.
Both have considerable focus shift and somewhat nervous background. I would go for the summicron due to size/weight, and due to the fact that using the summilux wide open would be problematic (if it's not optimized for wide open).
I had the 35 Summicron ASPH for a couple years and really enjoyed it, I know some dislike its rendering but I always got along pretty well with it and never found any objectionable focus shift with that lens, it wasn't blatantly obvious like the Zeiss C-Sonnar wide open (oh how I wish I could love that lens). I also previously had the Zeiss 35 Biogon for a couple years and really liked that one as well. I loved the rendering of the CV 35 f/1.2 but hated the size on M bodies unfortunately.
Right now I'm using a Konica UC-Hexanon 35 f/2 which is a bit of a rare beast and I love the rendering. But there's a part of me that gets annoyed at the .9m MFD as I find that with a 35 I get much closer, I don't mind .9-1m MFD on 50mm or longer though.
---------------------------------------------
Gary Clennan wrote:
Good info from Edward. I loved the small size and build of the 35cron but if you shoot a lot in low light (wide open), the bokeh and blur can be quite harsh unless you are very close. Both are nice but if you are a low light shooter, the f/1.4 can be handy at times...
I go back and forth on low-light with film. Most of my lenses are slow and I live in California where it's almost always perpetually sunny and I happen to like 400 ISO black and white film which means 1/1000 @ f/8 with a yellow filter on most days. But once I'm indoors or in a darker environment I appreciate having an f/2 or faster lens available.
---------------------------------------------
uhoh7 wrote:
The eternal battle: size vs speed
If you use a lens very often focus shift is easy to learn, I find. Helps to test on digital body, where in 20 minutes you can learn a lens pretty well for focusing, how much "english"
For film, speed is nice to have. At 35 DOF is manageable. I've looked at extensive comparisons of bokeh ZM35/1.4 vs FLE vs pre-FLE over at LUF, recently. I love the Leicas. ZM is very good, but the idea it's way nicer OOF, not to me. Very slightly nicer. Lately I've seen a ton of FLE...Show more →The Zeiss 35 1.4 would have been a contender if it wasn't so large. As I mentioned above, I loved the results from the CV 35 f/1.2 but I just couldn't get on with the size. From my understanding the 35 Summilux ASPH is roughly the size of the 28 Summicron and I did fine with that lens when I had it (I loved it in fact). I never really noticed the focus shift of the 35 Summicron, I'm sure it's there but it wasn't enough to be a bother on digital and I certainly never saw it on film.
Feb 17, 2017 at 01:04 PM
p.1410 #15Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
edwardkaraa wrote:
35 C-Biogon
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2820/32062544843_f3ae30a407_o.jpgL1001853 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Love this Edward.....
35 C-Biogon
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2820/32062544843_f3ae30a407_o.jpgL1001853 by edward karaa, on Flickr
Love this Edward.....
Feb 17, 2017 at 01:17 PM
p.1410 #17Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I continue being very pleasantly impressed with the Leica M10 image quality. I am really curious to find out how Leica have managed to suppress the colour aliasing and moire to such a degree without sacrificing sharpness. It must be something to do with the new sensor and the micro lenses.
The image below is a stitch panorama taken with the Zeiss ZM28/2.8 lens
Mt Voras - Greece by Nicholas T, on Flickr
The image below is a stitch panorama taken with the Zeiss ZM28/2.8 lens
Mt Voras - Greece by Nicholas T, on FlickrFeb 17, 2017 at 03:01 PM
p.1410 #18Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
coogee,
yep, this is in la jolla, the Birch Aquarium. And really just a short drive from the pier. fairly small aquarium, but i always get oodled by aquariums no matter how small. i love sea life and all its critters.
Nice shots of the peir and SD!
coogee wrote:
Nice view. I'm guessing that's La Jolla/Scripps Institution of Oceanography below? I wish I'd known there was an aquarium there! I spent a full day loafing around the beach with family late last year waiting for a late international flight out of SD. I suppose it is kind of obvious there might be now I think about it!
These were from a fairly grey October morning down at La Jolla with HP5+
We've all seen this one before
Scripps Pier
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/551/31479988660_c385b6234c_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/508/31479902160_732692ef86_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5532/31042691883_fba91187dd_b.jpg
yep, this is in la jolla, the Birch Aquarium. And really just a short drive from the pier. fairly small aquarium, but i always get oodled by aquariums no matter how small. i love sea life and all its critters.
Nice shots of the peir and SD!
coogee wrote:
low325 wrote
Q day at the aquarium.These were from a fairly grey October morning down at La Jolla with HP5+
We've all seen this one before
Scripps Pier
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/551/31479988660_c385b6234c_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/508/31479902160_732692ef86_b.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5532/31042691883_fba91187dd_b.jpg
Feb 17, 2017 at 03:35 PM
p.1410 #19Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
I find myself in a quandary, and its name is "50mm."
This might not be the right place, but, so far, you folks are the closest I've found to "my people" in a photographic sense. So. Thanks for bearing with me. :-)
The tl;dr is that I'd appreciate anyone's and everyone's thoughts and recommendations for a 50mm M-mount lens. Please send me a PM if you don't want to post for everyone to read, even if that's just a link to your social media page because you've got lots of 50mm images there. Or post anything you think is appropriate, even if that's an encouragement to take the question somewhere else.
I realize the 50mm debate has been hashed out way too many times before, so pointers to good discussions are entirely welcome. I geek out over data as much as lenses, so geeking out over data about lenses is doubly delicious. But I've searched and read and reviewed the internet's wisdom and pixel-peeped to excess, and I'm still not convinced that any particular direction is the right way to go. The discussions I've found have been dominated by folks saying, "here's what works best for me," not "here's why it works best for me" or "here's why I think it would work best for you." I'm hoping to learn about how lenses draw, and apply that to my desires, rather than just conduct a popularity test.
Background: I've never much gotten on with 50mm. I've never found the range between 36mm and 84mm to be inspiring. But, over the past few months, I have gotten into printing, which I now love -- Epson 3880 with Piezography carbon, but still exploring papers -- and I really like the letter-size format because it encourages hand-holding and sharing ... and it is cheap enough to print one off just to see what happens. Printing is now the end result of my photography. The thing is that I feel like wider lenses, my current domain of preference, prefer rather larger prints. Smallish prints squish up the central subjects too much when printed at ten inches wide; a wide lens, it seems, implies a large print. This is especially so with 21mm and somewhat so with 35mm, while 90mm is too flat, so I'm thinking that 50mm would be about right. And I'm willing to commit to learning a new lens to make the prints sing the way I want them to.
I've even looked at medium format cameras to get it right. American (?) paper sizing works well for 3:4 format, and a 645D isn't entirely out of reach ... but neither is shooting one the same as shooting a Leica. And it wouldn't get me around the magnification problem. So, 50mm on the rangefinder format I've come to enjoy seems like the best bet.
But the 50mm M-mount world is a (glorious, beautiful) mess. To be brief: if I want any of them, I want all of them. From Canon's LTM offerings to the Leica's APO and Noctilux charm, they entice me. Financially, I doubt I'll be able to justify the high end, like the APO, but I'm open to arguments in favor of Leica's greatest, just as I'm open to adapting a $20 plastic fantastic if the results are there. I'm currently taking a self-supported sabbatical, so a good lens would help me make the most of my time-off goals, but an expensive lens would shorten the duration of my time off. Priorities, priorities. :-)
My four top prospects are the 50/2.8 Elmar-M, 50/1.4 Summilux versions one and two, and 50/2.x Summarit. The modern Summarits are exceptionally crisp and clean, but don't kindle passion. The modern Elmar-M seems like it might have a richness to it like my Elmarit 21 Asph, which would be utterly delightful, but I'm not quite convinced that I see what I see rather than I see what I want to see. The v.2 Summilux has tons of field curvature, which I think might invoke what I like from my Summilux 35 FLE, but I haven't seen it vary from f-stop to f-stop. The v.1 Summilux is, apparently, also bewitched by field curvature, but with more of an emphasis on resolution and chromatic correction, which didn't serve it back in the day but which might be preferable to my tastes on high density digital sensors. A fifth option is the Summilux 50 Asph, which I understand has a lot of the traits of my beloved 35 FLE, but my sense is the results are softened and ... excellent but bland, if that makes sense, and I'd prefer rough but interesting, if that makes sense. Anyhow, if you shoot any of these lenses on a Leica digital body and would be willing to share a few DNGs with me, please get in touch.
Then there's an entire fleet of Voigtlanders that appear to have distinct and appealing characteristics, not to mention early Leica, Nikon, and Canon LTM lenses. I've basically written off modern ZM lenses because they operate with 1/3 stop apertures, but that's more because there are too many good lenses to choose from than because 1/3-stop would really bug me.
As for my style: I shoot static subjects almost exclusively, primarily from 2m from infinity, and with a mix from wide-open to f/11.
So. I'm pretty well determined to make a choice in the near future. I'd appreciate anyone's comments and/or suggestions, even if that's "if 50mm doesn't do it for you, stick with what you know you like."
Many thanks!
---------------------------------------------
edwardkaraa wrote:
Indeed there are many cheap M8 around, even in mint condition here in Bangkok, but I don't think it's worth it to get one even with the great b/w conversions. The electronics must be at the end of their life, starting with the LCD.
That's glass-half-empty thinking, Edward. I suggest seeing an M8 with a failed LCD as an M8-D. ;-)
Seriously, though, I've been constantly impressed how durable most electronics are. I think they seem fragile because, when they go, it is in a surprising puff of smoke. But, we remember those moments far better than we remember all those discarded devices in our drawers that would still turn on and work as well as ever if they had good batteries ... and Leica is still making batteries for the M8/M9, so even if old ones don't charge, it is an (absurd) $160 away to a fresh start.
Personally, I wouldn't shy away from an M8 for its age, assuming the seller was willing to accept a return for a malfunctioning device and I was willing to put the camera through its paces within that return period.
---------------------------------------------
adamdewilde wrote:
Haven't had much time for "fun" photography. ... The reason I've even been shooting with the SL at all lately (in my spare time) is that I'm testing the 50SL again (production copy/my own copy) and I'm curious if there is anything any of you want to see specifically?
I'd be very curious to hear your subjective and observational remarks of a SL/SL50, MD/APO50, A7/Z50 three-way comparison. Personally, I find that being engaged with the device -- optical finder & manual operation -- leads to me being more emotionally engaged in the act of photography, which leads to better final images ... and is more fun, to boot. Of course, I'm not a working photographer, so that basis is completely separate, but since you're passionate about the art, craft, and tools of it -- in addition to being a pro -- I'd enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter. Even if you don't throw the M into the mix, I'd appreciate it if you post your thoughts to your blog and mention that here when you do.
If it matters, the real killer for me in any lens is longitudinal chromatic aberration. If a clear wine glass in bright, white light shows up in an out-of-focus, greyish background with bright green edges, personally, that ruins the entire image for me. Most people don't care. But I sold an entire system to get away from it. So that's the first thing I look for in lens/system reviews. :-)
Oh, and your wife's commentary is delightful and directive. Even if it is just an addendum that says, in effect, "I've never touched it, but it seemed to make Adam miserable," or "...it made my husband grin, swear, and then smile again," that could be useful, not just for those deciding which way to go but also for those trying to convince their own significant others that buying such a thing would not be entirely insane. After all, if I'm on the fence and the lady isn't sure about it, then I might as well not worry and just move on to the next thing. So. Your lady's insight would also be of interest.
---------------------------------------------
AbramG wrote:
If one is only shooting film and debating between a 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH (the Pre-FLE version), what would make you swing one way over the other. I'm weighing the pros and cons and I keep arriving at a stalemate more or less.
Distortion. That's ultimately why I went for the Summilux over the Summicron. The Summicron is eminently flat until the corners, where there's a bit of pincushion; the Summilux has a gentle bit of barrel until the edges, where it evens out a bit, looking like pincushion. I strongly prefer barrel distortion in wide angle lenses because, while lines are bent, areas -- like faces -- look more natural. Others, particularly those that shoot with a lot of buildings as subject or background, might strongly prefer the Summicron.
Here is a comparison of bokeh for the "modern" Leica 35's. Just look at the f/5.6 samples at 3m to see distortion (but the bokeh test might also be interesting).
http://www.moonsoftware.com/ahto/leica_m_35mm_bokeh/
---------------------------------------------
Everyone posted:
<great photos>
Thanks, all. The photos here are always inspiring.
Cheers,
Jon
This might not be the right place, but, so far, you folks are the closest I've found to "my people" in a photographic sense. So. Thanks for bearing with me. :-)
The tl;dr is that I'd appreciate anyone's and everyone's thoughts and recommendations for a 50mm M-mount lens. Please send me a PM if you don't want to post for everyone to read, even if that's just a link to your social media page because you've got lots of 50mm images there. Or post anything you think is appropriate, even if that's an encouragement to take the question somewhere else.
I realize the 50mm debate has been hashed out way too many times before, so pointers to good discussions are entirely welcome. I geek out over data as much as lenses, so geeking out over data about lenses is doubly delicious. But I've searched and read and reviewed the internet's wisdom and pixel-peeped to excess, and I'm still not convinced that any particular direction is the right way to go. The discussions I've found have been dominated by folks saying, "here's what works best for me," not "here's why it works best for me" or "here's why I think it would work best for you." I'm hoping to learn about how lenses draw, and apply that to my desires, rather than just conduct a popularity test.
Background: I've never much gotten on with 50mm. I've never found the range between 36mm and 84mm to be inspiring. But, over the past few months, I have gotten into printing, which I now love -- Epson 3880 with Piezography carbon, but still exploring papers -- and I really like the letter-size format because it encourages hand-holding and sharing ... and it is cheap enough to print one off just to see what happens. Printing is now the end result of my photography. The thing is that I feel like wider lenses, my current domain of preference, prefer rather larger prints. Smallish prints squish up the central subjects too much when printed at ten inches wide; a wide lens, it seems, implies a large print. This is especially so with 21mm and somewhat so with 35mm, while 90mm is too flat, so I'm thinking that 50mm would be about right. And I'm willing to commit to learning a new lens to make the prints sing the way I want them to.
I've even looked at medium format cameras to get it right. American (?) paper sizing works well for 3:4 format, and a 645D isn't entirely out of reach ... but neither is shooting one the same as shooting a Leica. And it wouldn't get me around the magnification problem. So, 50mm on the rangefinder format I've come to enjoy seems like the best bet.
But the 50mm M-mount world is a (glorious, beautiful) mess. To be brief: if I want any of them, I want all of them. From Canon's LTM offerings to the Leica's APO and Noctilux charm, they entice me. Financially, I doubt I'll be able to justify the high end, like the APO, but I'm open to arguments in favor of Leica's greatest, just as I'm open to adapting a $20 plastic fantastic if the results are there. I'm currently taking a self-supported sabbatical, so a good lens would help me make the most of my time-off goals, but an expensive lens would shorten the duration of my time off. Priorities, priorities. :-)
My four top prospects are the 50/2.8 Elmar-M, 50/1.4 Summilux versions one and two, and 50/2.x Summarit. The modern Summarits are exceptionally crisp and clean, but don't kindle passion. The modern Elmar-M seems like it might have a richness to it like my Elmarit 21 Asph, which would be utterly delightful, but I'm not quite convinced that I see what I see rather than I see what I want to see. The v.2 Summilux has tons of field curvature, which I think might invoke what I like from my Summilux 35 FLE, but I haven't seen it vary from f-stop to f-stop. The v.1 Summilux is, apparently, also bewitched by field curvature, but with more of an emphasis on resolution and chromatic correction, which didn't serve it back in the day but which might be preferable to my tastes on high density digital sensors. A fifth option is the Summilux 50 Asph, which I understand has a lot of the traits of my beloved 35 FLE, but my sense is the results are softened and ... excellent but bland, if that makes sense, and I'd prefer rough but interesting, if that makes sense. Anyhow, if you shoot any of these lenses on a Leica digital body and would be willing to share a few DNGs with me, please get in touch.
Then there's an entire fleet of Voigtlanders that appear to have distinct and appealing characteristics, not to mention early Leica, Nikon, and Canon LTM lenses. I've basically written off modern ZM lenses because they operate with 1/3 stop apertures, but that's more because there are too many good lenses to choose from than because 1/3-stop would really bug me.
As for my style: I shoot static subjects almost exclusively, primarily from 2m from infinity, and with a mix from wide-open to f/11.
So. I'm pretty well determined to make a choice in the near future. I'd appreciate anyone's comments and/or suggestions, even if that's "if 50mm doesn't do it for you, stick with what you know you like."
Many thanks!
---------------------------------------------
edwardkaraa wrote:
Indeed there are many cheap M8 around, even in mint condition here in Bangkok, but I don't think it's worth it to get one even with the great b/w conversions. The electronics must be at the end of their life, starting with the LCD.
That's glass-half-empty thinking, Edward. I suggest seeing an M8 with a failed LCD as an M8-D. ;-)
Seriously, though, I've been constantly impressed how durable most electronics are. I think they seem fragile because, when they go, it is in a surprising puff of smoke. But, we remember those moments far better than we remember all those discarded devices in our drawers that would still turn on and work as well as ever if they had good batteries ... and Leica is still making batteries for the M8/M9, so even if old ones don't charge, it is an (absurd) $160 away to a fresh start.
Personally, I wouldn't shy away from an M8 for its age, assuming the seller was willing to accept a return for a malfunctioning device and I was willing to put the camera through its paces within that return period.
---------------------------------------------
adamdewilde wrote:
Haven't had much time for "fun" photography. ... The reason I've even been shooting with the SL at all lately (in my spare time) is that I'm testing the 50SL again (production copy/my own copy) and I'm curious if there is anything any of you want to see specifically?
I'd be very curious to hear your subjective and observational remarks of a SL/SL50, MD/APO50, A7/Z50 three-way comparison. Personally, I find that being engaged with the device -- optical finder & manual operation -- leads to me being more emotionally engaged in the act of photography, which leads to better final images ... and is more fun, to boot. Of course, I'm not a working photographer, so that basis is completely separate, but since you're passionate about the art, craft, and tools of it -- in addition to being a pro -- I'd enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter. Even if you don't throw the M into the mix, I'd appreciate it if you post your thoughts to your blog and mention that here when you do.
If it matters, the real killer for me in any lens is longitudinal chromatic aberration. If a clear wine glass in bright, white light shows up in an out-of-focus, greyish background with bright green edges, personally, that ruins the entire image for me. Most people don't care. But I sold an entire system to get away from it. So that's the first thing I look for in lens/system reviews. :-)
Oh, and your wife's commentary is delightful and directive. Even if it is just an addendum that says, in effect, "I've never touched it, but it seemed to make Adam miserable," or "...it made my husband grin, swear, and then smile again," that could be useful, not just for those deciding which way to go but also for those trying to convince their own significant others that buying such a thing would not be entirely insane. After all, if I'm on the fence and the lady isn't sure about it, then I might as well not worry and just move on to the next thing. So. Your lady's insight would also be of interest.
---------------------------------------------
AbramG wrote:
If one is only shooting film and debating between a 35 Summicron ASPH and the 35 Summilux ASPH (the Pre-FLE version), what would make you swing one way over the other. I'm weighing the pros and cons and I keep arriving at a stalemate more or less.
Distortion. That's ultimately why I went for the Summilux over the Summicron. The Summicron is eminently flat until the corners, where there's a bit of pincushion; the Summilux has a gentle bit of barrel until the edges, where it evens out a bit, looking like pincushion. I strongly prefer barrel distortion in wide angle lenses because, while lines are bent, areas -- like faces -- look more natural. Others, particularly those that shoot with a lot of buildings as subject or background, might strongly prefer the Summicron.
Here is a comparison of bokeh for the "modern" Leica 35's. Just look at the f/5.6 samples at 3m to see distortion (but the bokeh test might also be interesting).
http://www.moonsoftware.com/ahto/leica_m_35mm_bokeh/
---------------------------------------------
Everyone posted:
<great photos>
Thanks, all. The photos here are always inspiring.
Cheers,
Jon
Feb 17, 2017 at 03:40 PM
p.1410 #20Leica M/X/T/S/Q/CL/SL Picture Thread
Leica M3, Summicron 50mm DR, Fuji Velvia. Taken a few springs ago.
"Garden of Delights"
"Garden of Delights"
Feb 17, 2017 at 04:35 PM