[Leica] Re: M Johnston lens rant

["Mark E Davison" <Mark_E_Davison@email.msn.com>]

It strikes me that you get Brownie points for using the lens that best fits
your aesthetic intent.

If you want to convey romantic nostalgia, or dreamy surrealism, then a flary
uncoated lens shot into the light may produce just the effect that you want.
(Eggleston has some extremely evocative nightscapes that illustrate this.)
Flare (both veiled and specular) is one of the most visible properties of a
lens.

If you want to convey the breathtaking clarity of Western landscapes, then a
modern, low aberration, low flare lens may be just the thing. (I do not
believe that Ansel Adams could have achieved his aesthetic aims with a
Holga, as some have claimed.)

Certain kinds of macro-photography of natural subjects do demand the
edge-to-edge sharpness of a fine macro lens. The difference between the
macro shot and using a standard lens with extension tubes will be quite
obvious, and will make an aesthetic difference--the standard lens creates a
picture which is visibly soft in the edges, and will destroy the sense of a
uniform pattern running all the way to the edge of the picture.

Using a lens which is sharp and has high micro-contrast when wide open
appears to make the in-focus portions of a picture "pop" out of the
background. The degree of "pop" can be unsettling with modern lenses. (I
think this may explain why I like my DR Summicron sometimes better than my
current formulation Summicron M 50/2.)

What we seem to be missing is a good, well illustrated book that connects
the measurable properties of lenses with visible aesthetic effects. Right
now there is an information gap where amateur photographers who are
passionately interested in aesthetics of images find it hard to match lenses
with intended uses. It is difficult to tell when it is worth upgrading to a
more modern lens because there are no illustrations of  photographic images
where there is a discernible change in the image.

There is also no definitive guide to show which older optical effects can be
simulated with filters (physical or digital), and which cannot. (Certainly
blurring in Photoshop is not an easy way to replace veiled flare.)

It strikes me that one advantage of the Leica M system is that you can
actually use lenses of such different ages on a single camera. Unfortunately
such aesthetic exploration is expensive and quite time consuming.

For what its worth I have become an amateur lens conoisseur by accident. On
my M6 I have the 50 Summicron M, the Noctilux, a Canon 50/1.4 (from a Canon
7 I bought on whim), and a DR Summicron (bought from my camera dealer
because I loved the exterior finish!). On my Olympus OM4Ti I have a 24/2.0,
35/2.0, 50/1.8 (multicoated), 90/2.0 macro and 100/2.8. These I can compare
with Leica M counterparts of the same or similar focal lengths: 24/2.8 ASPH
Elmarit, 50/2.0 Summicron M, 90/2.8 Elmarit.

I have found that for much general photography the differences between my
lenses are small and quite subtle. Images shot with modern Leica lenses do
not always leap off the light table twice as high as the Olympus images. In
fact I sometimes can't tell the difference at all!

The differences become much more visible when shooting fine grained
structures (like bare tree branches at a distance), shooting into the light,
or shooting street scenes at night wide open. (Shooting bare tree branches,
wide open, at night, with light sources in the image is an excellent test
case. )

Based on my unscientific tests, the truly outstanding lens of ALL of these
is the Olympus 90/2.0 macro, in terms of color clarity, flatness of field,
and pitiless sharpness.

Perhaps that is the true holy grail of modern lens design: optical cruelty
towards human subjects! <grin>

The weirdest lens is the Noctilux--it is truly off in a different optical
direction. (Dreamy, watery out-of-focus areas, good flare control, but some
surreal aberrations.)



Sincerely,

Mark Davison