Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Older lens preferences
From: "Mārtiņš Zelmenis" <martin@lrpv.lv>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 10:29:18 +0200

Sorry,

but to me 3-dimensional look is NOT achieved by <good overall sharpness>!
Far from it! Seems we are talking of different subjects. It's not DOF that
creates this effect, but foreground <slightly> out of focus, with a
distinctly separated foreground - and middleground, too. And that's an
effect you can create with nearly every camera that's got manual controls..
I don't know if it's correct, but I'd sooner characterize the typical <Leica
lens look> in terms of <image plasticity> - but then I may be wrong in my
choice of the word.

I'd bet the lady's using a Summaron 35/3.5 that's - if not for FLARE (that
creates some peculiar glow under certain lighting - and may ruin your shots
if you use it as a modern Leica lens that can handle all light conditions) -
is a true Leica lens in terms of this same <plasticity> and resolution, no
matter how denigrated it is. In short, I regard it a good lens.

(And it's not-so-uncommon to do good work with a camera, and not know it's
parameters. After all, ASPH 35 lens users here on LUG seemingly unanimously
dismiss the benchmark tests they don't like; well, and what if the testers
just got to work on some lens, for which the manufacturing quality benchmark
slipped?         ;-))    )

Martin




She's doing good work with a Leica and can't name the camera?  Wow!

The 35 Summilux was introduced in '61, I think, so doesn't that leave the
35 Summicron (intro. late 50's) or the Summaron (intro mid-50's in
M-mount).  I wouldn't characterize the Summaron signature as you have below
(esp. "three dimensional look"), so if it's Leica at all, then it's
probably a Summicron.  On the other hand, to an untutored eye, *every* M
looks as though it were made in the '50's.  Chances are it's a black enamel
M4 with matching 'lux, don't you just know . . .

Chandos


,

At 08:32 PM 10/31/01 -0500, you wrote:
>A woman today showed me some portraits she had  shot recently, and I was
>struck by the wonderful soft glow of her subjects, the three dimensional
>look, beautiful out-of-focus portions of the pictures  and the wide  tonal
>range of her prints. All this  immediately identified them to me as Leica
>shots.  I questioned her further and  she said that the camera and lens
were
>from the 1950s, and that the lens was a 35mm. She had no further details.
So
>my question: which of the older lenses (in M mount) produce that wonderful
>glow so closely associated with Leica?
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html