Ole those are stellar! I always wanted to try one of those lenses out myself. I'm using the Super Angolon 21mm f/3.4 myself but I'd love to try the Biogon one day.
AbramG wrote:
Ole those are stellar! I always wanted to try one of those lenses out myself. I'm using the Super Angolon 21mm f/3.4 myself but I'd love to try the Biogon one day.
Thanks Abram! I think if you prefer a wide angle that is small and without distortion, this is a good choice. But it needs to be stopped down to f8 to get decent corner sharpness in my opinion. By comparison, my Loxia 21 for Sony A7 has significantly better across the field sharpness, and I would guess that Leica's more modern UWAs does as well. How do you find the Super Angulon in this regard?
Night images with the M10 and Summilux-50 pre-ASPH shot at ISO 3200 — in highly mixed light with huge color casts on skin tones; so one has to decide how much and where to neutralize. The first one was shot at 1/45 sec, so there is some camera motion.
JonPB wrote:
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!
---------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------
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).
Thanks, all. The photos here are always inspiring.
Cheers,
Jon...Show more →edwardkaraa wroteIndeed 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.adamdewilde wroteHaven'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?AbramG wroteIf 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.Earlier quoteEveryone posted: <great photos>
Jon,
I'm ploughing through a number of the M9... image thread pages, having recently returned home from a long trip (images to be posted in due course).
Noticing your query on 50mm lenses, I have many images that I made a few years back, all still-life test shots at home. I'm in the process of uploading these to a Google Drive folder as I type this, link below
I also have the same test shots done on my then Sony A7R (no Kolari mod, however I am not uploading those at this time).
Two lenses that I rate highly that I did not own then, but do now, are the Summarit 50 f/2.4 and Voigtlander Nokton 50 f/1.2 LTM (Version 1). I also really regret selling a V4 Summicron-M 50 that was my first genuine Leica lens.
I realise that most if not all of these lenses may fall outside your interest sphere, however I thought I would upload for possible interest. I had them uploaded as a Flickr album some time ago but they aren't there any longer.
PS - I also generally have Flickr albums that clearly state the source camera and lens for most images.
I've just worked my way through about 20 pages of this superb thread, over 2-3 days.
Wonderful imagery as usual.
I didn't use my M9 as much as expect ed on our recent holiday, but when I did it was rewarding as usual. I carried only two compatible lenses, a ZM25 f/2.8 and a Voigtländer Nokton 50 f/1.5 LTM. The ZM stayed almost always on my infrared-modified Ricoh GXR, so the Nokton was in heavy use.
Here are some from Buenos Aires, all with Nokton 50 f/1.5 LTM on M9.
OleAndre wrote:
Thanks Abram! I think if you prefer a wide angle that is small and without distortion, this is a good choice. But it needs to be stopped down to f8 to get decent corner sharpness in my opinion. By comparison, my Loxia 21 for Sony A7 has significantly better across the field sharpness, and I would guess that Leica's more modern UWAs does as well. How do you find the Super Angulon in this regard?
I've only been using the SA21 on film so far (I don't have a digital M anymore, but at the rate my digital equipment has been turning over I probably will come full circle back to the M240 before long haha). From what I have been able to tell the SA has really excellent central sharpness but it's not "brutal" it has a lot of that famous "Leica Glow™" but I do enjoy it quite a bit. It vignettes heavily but as I'm primarily working in black and white I find I don't mind that too much.
As to across the frame sharpness, from what I've seen on film so far it seems "best" at f/8 but very good at all other apertures. It's definitely a character lens but I kind of like it that way. Also where I live in California it's almost always sunny and I've got a tendency to shoot 400 ISO black and white film so I'm almost always at 1/1000 and f/8-11 anyways
AbramG wrote:
I've only been using the SA21 on film so far (I don't have a digital M anymore, but at the rate my digital equipment has been turning over I probably will come full circle back to the M240 before long haha). From what I have been able to tell the SA has really excellent central sharpness but it's not "brutal" it has a lot of that famous "Leica Glow™" but I do enjoy it quite a bit. It vignettes heavily but as I'm primarily working in black and white I find I don't mind that too much.
As to across the frame sharpness, from what I've seen on film so far it seems "best" at f/8 but very good at all other apertures. It's definitely a character lens but I kind of like it that way. Also where I live in California it's almost always sunny and I've got a tendency to shoot 400 ISO black and white film so I'm almost always at 1/1000 and f/8-11 anyways ...Show more →
Thanks Abram! Very good to know your user experience with the SA21 I follow you all to well when it comes to turnover! Its an expensive hobby to have (dont tell my wife that...)
A couple more with the C Biogon on the M246, both taken at f8.
AbramG wrote
I've only been using the SA21 on film so far (I don't have a digital M anymore, but at the rate my digital equipment has been turning over I probably will come full circle back to the M240 before long haha). From what I have been able to tell the SA has really excellent central sharpness but it's not "brutal" it has a lot of that famous "Leica Glow™" but I do enjoy it quite a bit. It vignettes heavily but as I'm primarily working in black and white I find I don't mind that too much.
As to across the frame sharpness, from what I've seen on film so far it seems "best" at f/8 but very good at all other apertures. It's definitely a character lens but I kind of like it that way. Also where I live in California it's almost always sunny and I've got a tendency to shoot 400 ISO black and white film so I'm almost always at 1/1000 and f/8-11 anyways ...Show more →
I love my 21SA too! It's special on b/w film, I love its freedom from distortion and it's a great size as an object. It's ropey and terrible too!! but can work on b/w film really nicely, I share your feelings on ISO400 -> f/8. The hood made a massive difference with mine.
Without hood:
lenticular11 wrote: zhangyue wroteOle, really impressive images so far! welcome to the thread and congr to M246.Apologies Ole, I had intended to say something very similar! I look forward to your Lofoten Island images also, it's s stunning place.
Thank you both of you Travelling to Lofoten in just two days now - really excited! (although the weather forecast is not that good)