Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You go Nathan, I'm in the same camp. Glow = aberration levels high enough to disguise structure within the bo-ke. Smooth and soft can mean effectively lower contrast/resolution. I do understand that people enjoy the gentle effects for some types of portraits or romantic style images. Not meaning to be controversial or rude. Cheers Hoppy -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [Leica] Old lens, new lens Sorry, but I am one of those who never understood the fascination with old lenses and all this talk about "glow" (veiling flare?) and other optical defects being somehow beneficial for certain subjects. I much prefer to avail myself of the benefits of modern optical engineering. If one cannot afford the latest lenses and therefore goes for the older ones for budget reasons, that is a different story. But of the two shots Peter posted, I by far prefer the Summilux shot, wrinkles and all. Look at it another way: you can may a sharp image soft, but you cannot make a soft image sharp. Nathan Peter Klein wrote: > On the M8 sensor, the Lux is resolving a little bit more detail in the > hair. But that's not what's really important. The Canon has less > microcontrast, and there's a definite "glow" to the image. It's also > a much kinder lens. The Lux ASPH is mercilessly sharp and contrasty. > > My suspicion is at least one aspect of the elusive "Leica Glow" has to > do with the way that bright areas diffuse slightly into adjacent dark > areas. An optical "flaw," but one that has a very pleasant effect > under the right circumstances. > > On film, my favorite 50mm lens, the DR Summicron, draws very much like > the Canon. Which makes me all the more eager to try the latter on the > M8. Anyway, Sean Reid is right, those old designs make great > sunny-day lenses. And they are a lot kinder to people over 25! > > --Peter >