[Leica] New 35/1.4 ASPH?

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Mark --
> 
> I wasn't rappping Leica at all, and I am probably less interested in bokeh
> than anyone on the list; I think it's the microbrewery-zone of photography,
> totally overrated, inclined toward the sweet and pretty. Its qualities
> certainly do not determine a good photograph. In short, I don't give a crap
> about bokeh.
> 
> My point was meant to be a larger aesthetic one, to the effect that we 
> might
> have crossed some line technologically where the physical technical
> capacities of the art form (photography in this case, but it has happened 
> in
> many ways in other forms as well) now exceed the intention of the artist 
> and
> the generally accepted intentions of artists traditionally. Which is why I
> suggested that for intimate scenes and street scenes I suspect I would like
> these lenses better in black and white: this is an argument in favor of the
> gesture that evokes the whole; in favor of a little bit of abstraction over
> the hyper-perfect rendition.  You are practical: you want the best tool
> available, and these certainly are the best and I wouldn't argue that for a
> second. I love sharpness in a photograph; but I'm accustomed to b&w film
> mainly... And as I noted, when taking a wider view these lenses to me eye
> are at their very best. But to see a street scene in color produced by an 
> M9
> (or any other really top rate digital camera)  in combination with an ASPH
> lens is to see a photograph that is now working outside its seemingly
> intended genre. Part of photography's magic for me has always resided in
> its seeing as we see, only a little better, or I should say, smarter, which
> is to say, with a frame; and permanently instead of passingly.  But the way
> these lenses see the world is no longer evocative of how we see it and so
> the technology borders on the sentimental, if misapplied (broadly put, not
> how things are but how we wish them to be, in this case, perfectly outlined
> and detailed); which is why I said 'pornographic', for pornography is
> usually a vulgar sentimentalizing of the purely visual in the erotic.
> 
> I'm sorry to anser at such length but answering is my way of thinking.

I'm a black and white specialist.
http://rabinergroup.com/
Thing is from a technical standpoint with film or digital with a 24x36mm
format we are pushing the envelope on the quality end of things.
We are using miniature cameras.
The cameras might not know they are miniature cameras becaue they weight two
pounds but this is miniature format.
What we do with the format is capture the moment and with a surprising
amount of detail and fine tonality all things considered.
But if detail and fine tonality is the name of the game we should be
shooting not with miniature format.  We need to move up the the more normal
big boy stuff. Which is medium format at least. Here we make very large
prints and we can make statements about the fine art of lens design as if we
knew anything about it.  As we are looking out critical output from a
critical camera system worthy of it.
A lens when its only covering a 43mm image circle just as to do the
impossible. It has to be better than "good" it has to pretty much be
miraculous.
The fact that they have ways now of grinding a lens aspherically and
affordably and all kinds of new coatings and computer designed movable
components in the past 20 years really I think is a boom for  the format
which needs anything it can get. I have a 16x20 darkroom fiber print I made
from a delta 100 Xtol 1:3 neg having used a new 35mm ASPH Summicron and
people think it was medium or large format.
So its surprising what these hopefully little cameras can do. Though the
case cane be made its not what they are all about.
But I don't hear this rap on the new glass being too sharp from people who
use slow film with a tripod and print big. I'm hearing it from the camera
eBay traders who show  you small jpegs and need a reason to trade one lens
for another. And it never has to be much of a reason. Scratch the surface on
any of this logic and it doesn't hold up.
I'm not talking about this thread now. 'm talking about how its gone down
for over a decade on the lug which included with most these ASPH's came out
for the first time in its new more affordable versions. Before that there
was this one old guy who hand ground one element a day. When he had a snow
day there was no element that day. On the lens they say Asperical instead of
on the new ones which say ASPH.

[Rabs]
Mark William Rabiner