[Leica] CV lens recommendations

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

At 8:35 AM -0500 3/30/07, Jack Maddox wrote:
>Daniel Ridings wrote:
>>Justin Viiret wrote:
>>
>>>>From what I am hearing the Nokton needs stopped down to 2.8 and 
>>>>that most CV glass is subject to flaring.. Super wide angles are 
>>>>not my cup of tea. I generally use a 35.
>>>
>>>Is this true? I've only really used the 40/1.4, but I've never, 
>>>ever got it to flare. Not even once, and I used to use it without 
>>>the hood all the time (couldn't get one until about 9 months after 
>>>I bought the lens) . Perhaps this is only limited some of the CV 
>>>glass?
>>
>>I'm with Justin on this. I have a 21/4 that I have rarely managed 
>>to get to flare (by shooting straigth into the sun).
>>
>>CV glass doesn't flare as much as Leica lenses from the 50's and 
>>before. Sounds like a rumour if you ask me.
>>
>>Daniel
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Leica Users Group.
>>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>Daniel,
>
>I am glad to hear that  flare in CV glass may not be an issue. I was 
>quoting from a review that was dated 2004. If it was true then 
>enough time has passed to correct the issue. Most of my older Leica 
>glass flares a good bit. It would be nice to have a lens that one 
>didn't have to worry excessively about flare.
>
>Jack

The CV lenses I have do flare more than the modern equivalents from 
Leica (in those cases where there are equivalents, but as noted 
before, their flare levels in most cases are the same or better than 
those of Leica of the 50's and 60s. However, and this is a big 
however, the Leica lenses of the 50's and 60's tended to have quite 
smooth flare, with overall contrast reduction under most 
circumstances, and the CV lenses while having overall lower flare 
levels tend to produce more of the harsh flare/reflection spots that 
can destroy pictures. All anecdotal, but based on some experience.

The 21/4 is not as good as the 21/2.8 aspheric, but it's better than 
the 21/2.8 non-aspheric in almost every respect. The only strange 
thing that has come up is that while on film it's not that far off 
the Aspheric, on the M8 the Aspheric pulls away. The corners from the 
CV are noticeably poorer. Strangely the 15/4.5, which is not as good 
on film as the 21/4 (as much as they can be compared), is relatively 
better on the M8. Unfortunately it's a kludge putting an IR cut 
filter on it. The 12 works fine, but I haven't yet been able to 
decently correct shots that were taken with the IR cut filter. I need 
to find out about the proper correction parameters to use when 
dealing with the cyan shift. If anyone has discovered a good 
workflow, I'd be very interested. Meanwhile, I use it without the 
filter when I want colour.

The 50 Nokton, on the other hand, while having better resolution than 
the pre-aspheric Summilux over most of the image field at all the 
wider apertures, has a rendition that is harsher and for most people 
less pleasing. Flare levels are similar to mid production periods of 
the Summilux, as far as I've been able to determine. In the end, I 
didn't like the Nokton that much.

-- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com