Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/30

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm Summilux-M
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:19:58 -0400

Sorry for the first line in Martian...It should - obviously read...

Sorry, Peter, but why...

Busy day....;-)

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of B. D. Colen
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:55 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm Summilux-M


Sorry, Peter, but if by why do we need "visible" clues to the fact that a
photo is taken with what is by modern standards an inferior lens in
available light? Don't we take photos because we want to make a particular
image, or do we take them to show that we shoot with available light?

Yes, many of those older, classic, photos are full of flare, are 'soft,' and
feature other optical aberrations. But I guarantee you that the
photographers who took them would have killed for lenses that would have
allowed them to photograph without those optical problems.

Is it possible to make wonderful images with those older lenses? Of course.
Should everyone rush out and purchase each lens improvement as it appears?
Only if their financial or artistic life depends upon them always producing
the 'best' possible image - by which I guess I mean, in this case, the image
that most closely conveys what the photographer saw when he/she made the
photo.

Personally, I find nothing charming about a flat, soft, flared-out image.
But that's just me. (And if I had to chose between the  old summilux 35 and
no f 1.4 35, I'd take the old lens without a second's hesitation. Better
some image, than no image. But better a sharp, flare free image with good
contrast than an image with none of those qualities.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Peter Klein
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:18 PM
To: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm Summilux-M


"Rei Shinozuka" <shino@panix.com> posted a comparison of the classic and
ASPH 35mm Summiluxes:

>  http://www.shinozuka-family.com/35summiluxen/

This is great, Rei.  Thanks for posting it.  The only thing better would
be an "available darkness" shot taken with both lenses.

The pictures show something that I've been wondering about for a while. Is
it possible for a lens to be too *good* sometimes?  There are certain
visual cues that tell us that "this is available light shot."  A little
flare, a little softness, a bit of "glow," coma in the highlights, sketchy
detail in the shadows.  I have seen shots with the newer lenses that are
so good that I dont realize at first that they were taken in dim
light--the only clue is narrow depth of field.  It almost seems too good,
too easy.

Is it a lifetime of seeing all those old classic available light
photos?  Sour grapes because the ASPH costs so much more?  A realization
that the "flaws" of older lenses can in the right hands be part of one's
pallette--a "look" and a way of seeing?  Probably a bit of all of this.

Now of course, if someone brought me both lenses and said, "you can have
either one for free, but only one," I would pick the ASPH without
hesitation.

I've also noticed in recent years that non-photographers are less and less
accepting of optical "flaws" in available light photography.  They're
still amazed that we can get the shot without flash, but that amazement
quickly gives way to:  "But it's not sharp! I could get a better shot with
my Caniktax super-twinkie zoom-o-blitz."

- --Peter Klein
Seattle, WA

- --
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