Dear J-
They talk about the expense of the last ten percent — that is, the most expensive part of any pursuit is getting that last ten percent of quality; should you be able to convince yourself that ninety is pretty darn good, you can save yourself a ton of dough. Consider high-end audio; the people that lose sleep over the lossy compression of MP3s are probably the ones who still have turntables hanging around (or in other literally suspended situations) somewhere.
So too with photography; for a given amount of money you could buy a crapload of cheap lenses (I’ve done that) or, as I’m discovering now, you can train yourself to know one lens intimately (now nearly four months with the 35mm Elmarit and I’m only now thinking I’ve got it dialed in fairly well) and get the best effects — or the desired picture — from it. My example is the first version of the 35mm Elmarit (with Series VI filters); indeed, it comes with but a single metering cam, meaning that it was released at the time of the original Leicaflex SLR, and never received an update from Leica for compatibility with any of their later models.
There’s a soft-focus effect at f/2.8, wide-open. It’s not displeasing, unless you’ve got some lights scattered at the edges of the picture — then they tend to coma and look downright odd — a couple of stops down and most of that disappears. But it’s an Elmarit, and it’s a Leica, meaning it lives most of the time at f/2.8. For the subjects I photograph, that makes it perfect. Depth of field is reasonable wide-open, so focussing via the E-1’s viewfinder isn’t too difficult. What sells it to me, though, is the rendition of the out-of-focus highlights; I’ve gotten used to (via the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 and pretty much all the Nikkors I’ve used) seeing specular highlights rendered as round blobs with bright edges. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S (original version, not the compact later design) I hung on the camera before does downright evil things to the out-of-focus areas, even though there’s no denying how the contrast and sharpness pop.
It’s not the greatest lens, resolution-wise, and it’s probably far outclassed by modern zoom designs. The focussing throw is long and slow, and it’s been replaced and then discontinued by the parent company. Yet I finally understand why and what folks talk about when Leica lenses are referred to with reverent tones; it’s a lens that rewards the photographer by making them look far more talented than they deserve. And the cost? You tell me what’s more expensive: cheap lenses that never get used, or moderately pricey (and Leica R lenses are reasonable secondhand) lenses you drag out every day to capture your memories?
Mike
20 July 2008 at 8:37 am
Mike, can you post some examples showing the differences you’re mentioning? I’m especially interested in the “coma” effect you mentioned and something showing the differential effect you describe concerning depth of field and contrast.
I know that some of the effect may be lost by posting compressed jpegs here on your blog, but larger-file sizes at flickr might not destroy the effect, right?
20 July 2008 at 10:44 am
For coma, take a peek at the corners of this image (yes, the theater said no photography but I took a picture of the cast coming out to take a bow — I have my own, small-minded justifications). It’s the Elmarit wide-open at f/2.8. Soft focus, check out the “glow” around the cooler here.
As a comparison, you can see how the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S (original) draws the out-of-focus highlights here (edgy-looking, for lack of a better term); compared with any of these three — 1 2 3 — the Elmarit does a better job of not calling attention to it. But like I said, the difference in quality isn’t even 10%, and the jump in price can be breathtaking (Nikkor was $5 at a pawnshop, Elmarit was close to $100).
Incidentally, the naming convention of the Leica lenses has to do with their maximum aperture (summilux = f/1.4, summicron = f/2.0, elmarit = f/2.8), instead of the Zeiss convention, which refers to the construction of the lens (tessar = four elements, etc.).
16 August 2008 at 10:46 am
Thanks – belatedly – for taking the time to post these examples. I’m still not 100% sure I see the difference well enough to be able to pick it out unaided myself. but I can see the difference in these images.
The background in the image of figgy looking out the window has a very pleasing, almost geometrically-treated look about it. For my money, the other shots look fine too, but the effect is perhaps overall more organic and “real” rather than looking processed or treated. I suppose each presentation has its relative merits, depending upon the situation, but the point is that the Elmarit is capable of achieving this effect where other lenses cannot.
16 August 2008 at 8:28 pm
I admit that I’m in love with very fast lenses — f/2.0 and larger f-stops, as those aren’t readily available even with the f/2.8 zooms so prevalent today — but those may not exhibit quite as nice out-of-focus highlights as slower lenses; the more light pouring through a lens the harder it is to get it all to behave nicely. Ironically, faster lenses make the background blur more, but they might not make it blur quite as beautifully.
That said, the next project is to hack apart a Vest Pocket Kodak. Stay tuned.
12 September 2008 at 12:25 pm
And the cost? You tell me what’s more expensive: cheap lenses that never get used, or moderately pricey (and Leica R lenses are reasonable secondhand) lenses you drag out every day to capture your memories?
I would put a single word to that… that quite sum it up well!
12 September 2008 at 8:24 pm
I must keep reminding myself to stay on target: save up for the lenses you will use, instead of lenses I might use. Any word on an R10 yet?