I've been shooting 3 of the Leica 50's recently, the 50 Summilux, the current version of the Summicron, and most recently the previous version of the Summicron. While the current Summicron is blazingly sharp, I mostly shoot people ( http//www.kirktuck.com) and I've found the newest Summi a bit biting at around 5.6 or f8. Didn't realize it was so clinical until I picked up the previous version. That lens is sharp but at the same time just a bit smoother. Such a thing as too sharp? Any other shooters notice these difference? With landscapes, products, details, etc. the most current lens is very three dimensional. Am I just conditioned to accept as correct the softer look from previous generations or what?

Vaguely conflicted in Austin.

-- kirk r. tuck (kirktuck@kirktuck.com), July 19, 2001

Answers

Interesting question... I believe the answer is a definate "No." However, I also do not believe sharpness is the only consideration important in selecting a lens. I switched to Leica's as my 35 of preference primarily because of the range and smoothness of tonality expressed by the optics; secondarily however I was also impressed by their resolving power. Generally speaking, you give up tonal range as optical contrast increases, but resolution increases with contrast. As these lenses offered me a terrific balance of both great resolution and broad tonal range, I fell instantly in love. So, I think on balance you have to look at the trade-offs, and decide which traits will give you the image you're looking for. If tonal gradation is more important than resolution, then yes, some of the earlier Leica lenses are indeed better choices.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 19, 2001.

Kirk,

I have always suspected that in terms of absolute sharpness Leica has designed its premier optics to appoach perfection in both the areas of spherical and chromatic abberations however, they do not over- correct for spherical abberations.... allowing some "residual" signature to the glass that gives it good background bokeh. I have some foreground "out-of-focus" shots with my 75 lux and I can attest that the lovely bokeh of the background OOF shots is reversed in the foreground OOF shots. The newer generation of lenses incorporating the ASPH advantage go a step further in the correction of spherical abberations and vignetting (as attested by the excellent wide-open performance of the 21, 24, 35, 90 ASPH lenses) but this is at the expense of that little bit of spherical abberation that gives the Leica lenses their "soul". For sure, the look of the current Leica lenses is much better than the current Nikkors (where Nikon has chosen to over-correct for spherical abberations) but compared to the older generation of Leica lenses you trade one thing for another. Edge to edge sharpness for more "complexity" of the bokeh. It is certainly hard to quantify (its more subjective) but compare a F4 shot from a 35 Summicron (non-ASPH) to one from a current 35 Cron and you'll see a minute difference. It may be inconsequential to some and the tradeoff for uniform field sharpness may be a good one. But that older 35 Cron has just the right amount of sharpness and "cream" for me. I feel the same way about the 50 Cron.

Luckily for me... I was able to source out a previous incarnation of the current generation 50 Cron. (With the rigid lens shade and tab). I can't wait to get my hands on it and behold its bokeh!!!!!

-- John (ouroboros_2001@yahoo.com), July 19, 2001.

Hi,Kirk: Such a thing as too sharp you said? You bet it ! And you don't need to trust me on this respect. Ask the ladies; they know better . . . Have fun !

-Iván

-- Ivan Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), July 19, 2001.

Its funny because I also noticed that the current version seems sharper than the last generation tabbed lens, even though all the experts say the glass is suppose to be identical. I like my lenses super sharp for the most part, but also have a few vintage lenses that offer a slightly different look. I especially like to be able to get high sharpness at large apertures- that look where what little is in focus just jumps right off the page. The screw mount 50 f3.5 Elmar has a nice quality to the images and it is still sharp, just not as much so as the current lenses.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 19, 2001.

Current version of the 50 Summicron seems sharper that is--I failed to mention what lens I was talking about in my above post.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 19, 2001.

Sharp is good because then you have a choice, if you want sharp you focus until it is sharp. And if you want soft, you unfocus a bit.

-- YIp (koklok@krdl.org.sg), July 19, 2001.

Hi,

When I first bought the 75/1.4 I took it with me to dinner. My wife was next to me and my best friend and his wife were across the table. We ate around 7 PM and it was a cloudy; the late afternoon light was a little bit harsh. I popped off about ten shots of my best friend's wife who was across the table from us. Afterwards, I had the prints developed and gave them to her.

She saw every wrinkle in her face with the 75/1.4. Although she is not really that old, it freaked her out and put her on a fast track for plastic surgery (eyes). So the lens was too sharp for her, but not for the plastic surgeon. In retrospect, the lens was most likely too sharp for my best friend.

Eddie

-- Edward Steinberg (es323@msn.com), July 19, 2001.

I agree with Yip that "sharp is good because then you have a choice". However, I prefer to soften up, for female/child portraits, using a vaseline-smeared filter or stocking mesh. I like it better than defocusing. YMMV

Regards,

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), July 20, 2001.

I don't think a lens can be too sharp. It's like saying can a single malt be too smooth? It is easy to soften the image either with a diffuser while shooting or softening during printing. It is more dissapointing to miss details when you wanted them because your lens is not sharp enough.

-- Steve Belden (otterpond@tds.net), July 20, 2001.

John:

You should be able to "behold its Bokeh" tomorrow evening!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), July 20, 2001.

Old rule of thumb.....never make photographs of women with lenses younger than they are....:-).

Or as 'blad users, do the Softar thing.

Cheers.

-- Simon Wong (drsimonwong@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.

Hi everybody,

And what do you think about sharpness of the Summicron 90mm Apo Asph for women portraits? If you have no attention to their make up ... difficult moments !! Best regards, Alain

-- alain.besançon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), July 20, 2001.

I've got both the 11817 and 11819 (latest w. pull-out hood), as well as both versions of the 50/2-R lens. If you shoot them at f/2 or f/2.8 the lower contrast of the earlier lenses is evident, and in very big enlargements you can see a drop in the recording of extremely fine details also. Perhaps that contributes to the smoother look in more usual enlargements. From f/4 on down, I confess I can't see any difference in these lenses.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), July 20, 2001.

Everytime I have run a trial in order to compare lenses, I have to be honest, I found no objective differences between them. Last time was comparing a Rollei 35T versus 50mm f2 Leica R. I don't mean that there are not differences, I mean that I couldn't detect them using Velvia and a x6 loupe (in this forum has been said that at least x20 is necessary in order to pick up differences). I believe that my trials were not appropriate although I used a tripod and the same conditions in both lenses, but I also believe that my trials are similar or even maybe better than the ones made for others. Thus it amazes me how easily some people can detect differences between lenses in sharpness, colour rendition and another endless number of variables. I should concede that I am a bit thick, anyway, I am not the enemy, I am a Leica user but I like to be objective.

-- Javier (j_perezbarberia@hotmail.com), July 20, 2001.

In therory I think a lens can never be sharp enough, and agree with the comparison to single malt scotch (it appears from this and previous posts that Leica users are really helping the Scottish as well as the German economies) :-) That being said, for a lot of the work I do (fine-art nudes) I find myself resorting to my coated Elmar 50mm. Softening under the enlarger (mentioned in previous post) just does not give the soft, gentle quality some of the older Leica glass gives. Leica is now (in the R series) one of the few manufactures that does not produce a 'soft' or 'defocus' lens - there are instances where things can be t

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), July 20, 2001.

After reading the responses here, I think I see that there are two distinct questions here. Can a lens be too sharp? Probably not. Can a subject matter be rendered with too much detail? Definately so. I usually use a Tiffen Soft EFX 3 with my 90 Elmarit for close up portraits of anyone over about 12 years old. It still gives nice sharp eyes but blends the skin tones just enough so it gives a more natural look without resolving every pore and wrinkle. There has been some talk that a lens can be too contrasty and coupled with many of todays higher contrast films, leads to an unattractive image that misses a full tonal range. Other optics experts say this is not true- a lens can not be too high in contrast. About the current 50 seeming to be sharper than the tabbed version, one Leica dealer told me he thought Leica was always improving their coatings, even though the glass formula of a certain lens was unchanged. That could certainly explain an increase in contrast at wide apertures.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), July 20, 2001.

Thank you very much Andrew, I preciously note it. Best regards, Alain

-- alain.besançon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), July 21, 2001.

If you think a lens is too sharp for certain application, and a soft filter does not provide the soft and sharp effect, then get a cheap UV filter, on the center of it, put a little vaseline, about a dime in diameter, they may do the trick. The center part of the lens is always the sharpest. Blocking the axial ray with slightly opaque material soften the lens slightly.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), July 21, 2001.

Hello Martin,

Good idea, I also note it. Thanks. And best regards, Alain.

-- alain.besançon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), July 21, 2001.

Some people seek out the older lenses because of the beautiful character: softer, smoother midtones, slightly diffused highlights, etc. But talking to most photographers about lens character is like talking about the character of a Steinway piano to a pop keyboard player--the nuances have been steamrolled over in the noise.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), August 01, 2001.

Peter, can you imagine Mozart playing in a modern pop keyboard, I´m sure he would remind himself, furthen than noise the ability of an artist is what makes an instrument worth.

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), August 01, 2001.