Leica 35mm f/2.5 Summarit-M

You know- a REALLY GOOD optical engineer designing a lens for a film camera would have some distortion in it to account for curvature of the film in the chamber...

In all seriousness- lens manufacturers had to account for film curvature for shimming the lens. I wonder if any lenses also accounted for the non-flat surface distorting the image, and applying an optical correction into the design.
 

usayit

Veteran
At one point, I owned all of the f/2.5 Summarits. I still own the 35, 75, and 90mm. Lovely lenses. Fairly underrated. The best aspect for me was just how easy and quick they were to focus. Short focus throw, easy feel, with just enough damping. In comparison, my 35mm FLE is stiff and the 35mm f/1.2 is too big. They do render very nicely on the monochrom.. classical.
 

funkydog

Rookie
No offence intended but what does the 'classical' look mean? I see it mentioned frequently and know it doesn't refer to the cosmetic appearance. What did 'modern' lenses screw up so badly , and when did that happen, that a distinction in nomenclature was created to differentiate between the classical look and the modern?
 

asiafish

All-Pro
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Real Name
Andrew
Modern as I understand it tends to have higher contrast and maximum sharpness, while classical is a smoother look. Modern lenses are technically better in almost every measurable way. Where some photographers prefer classical rendering is in things that cannot be quantified. Modern rendering can make some subjects look clinical because of this extreme corner-to-corner sharpness and near total lack of distortion or imperfections of any kind.

The 35 Summarit for instance is not tack-sharp from corner to corner like the 35 Cron ASPH is. It (the Summarit) can get close if stopped down, but wide open there are spherical aberrations that can make things a bit (not very) soft in the corners. The Summarit is, of course, a modern lens, but it has a (slightly) classical rendering.
 

NJH

Regular
I think that is what people mean but its hard to pin down when was classical and when was modern. Personally I take it as lenses with high micro contrast are modern. You can see this looking at the 40lp/pm line on a lenses MTF plot (this to me is what micro contrast is others can argue wrongly IMHO about it being something else). Both Leica and Zeiss publish these plots in their material. High micro contrast goes right back to Summicrons from 40 odd years ago whereas even a brand new 50 Sonnar has fairly low micro contrast. My own experience is that the results show up much more not less on film compared to digital, my Sonnar for example I felt was fine at f5.6 or f8 on the M8 but on film looking at high res scans everything at infinity is mush. Use my 28mm Elmarit ASPH on the other hand and its really shocking how much it gets onto film when pixel peeping the 30 Mp scans the lab send me. What I find frustrating when guys talk about this on the net is that you can turn the micro contrast down in post by pushing the clarity slider in ACR to the left if one feels their "modern" lens is rendering a bit harsh. Unfortunately you can't do the same to get back fine low contrast detail which the "classic" lens has rendered as mush.
 

asiafish

All-Pro
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Real Name
Andrew
Well it was my last day at Fort Leonard Wood, MO (until I come back in October). These were all taken with the Leica M9 at ISO 160 and the Leica 35mm f/2.5 Summarit-M, wide-open, minimal post.



At the Army Museum grounds.

14173149476_b86fa99674_b.jpg
L1002027.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr


These two were in the PX parking lot. This fine automobile hasn't moved in the two weeks I've been here.

14009690017_43790fd111_b.jpg
L1002008.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr

14173145646_12b2dbc47c_b.jpg
L1002007.jpg by Lawman1967, on Flickr
 

asiafish

All-Pro
Location
Bakersfield, CA
Real Name
Andrew

Latest threads

Top Bottom