i've just started out with a Leitz 50 summicron 229xxxx for about a week. Shot a roll of NPH and Superia 400 each. Colour very much dependent on film used. Sharpness dependent on my handholding and focusing skill. When i'm up to it, the recorded details are amazingly fine, even at f2.

One thing i notice now that i'm using RF. i can immediately tell if my body is moving towards or away from my point of focus. i knew it happens when i'm still using SLR but could hardly tell by viewing through the SLR viewfinder. It is now so obvious in the RF window.

Among the keepers of these two rolls, half are portraits, the other half are shots of static objects at the distance of between 1m and 3m. i'm still trying to appreciate the way the Leitz renders OOF highlights at maximum aperture. They look not much better than the EF50/1.8mk2 or EF35/2 that i used to be using.

And then about the GLOW. What exactly is it? Is it similar to putting on the weakest soft filter where brighter area bleeds into darker area? If so, i'm thinking of getting the cheapest E39 filter, leave it out of the room to collect an even layer of dust and put it over the B+W protection filter.

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), October 15, 2001

Answers

Different lenses from different eras produce different results. Some reckon the "glow" is more apparent with the older lenses, and only at larger apertures. Check out German photographer Alf Breull (http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm) for explanation and examples of the term "Leica glow".

-- David Killick (Dalex@inet.net.nz), October 15, 2001.

uncorrrected aberrations in older lens designs, afaik

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), October 15, 2001.

http://members.aol.com/abreull/htm/08a.htm

.......explains plainly of this effect. Thanks David.

Is it possible to replicate such reminiscence without getting such an old lens? Like maybe a 35/50 summilux or Nokton/Ultron. i'm afriad i may be cheated due to my inexperience. How much should this cost? Does it have RF coupling in M mount?

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), October 15, 2001.

Hi, Y (?):

I'm not the wisest Leica technician here, but I suspect this is the "glow" you refer to.

It was rendered by a Summicron 5cm f2 hand hold at 1/60s f8 in a 1957 M3 body. I don't know the lens' birth year but I suspect it is the same or very close to the body's.

I shot the picture crossing my fingers wishing to capture the special pre-storm light but knowing the odds were extremely low according to years of previous experience with first class non-Leica and more modern lenses.

Now I'm sure no other lens I own or have ever owned could do it. Maybe because of the shortcomings this old Cron exhibits as mentioned above. So I'm afraid that if you want to get the "glow" you should go backwards in technology.

Go, get it !

Cheers

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), October 15, 2001.

Perhaps you refer to the glow on the camera salesperson's face when he realizes favourite sucker..er, customer has walked in with a will to use his wallet and buy yet another Leica item?

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), October 15, 2001.

We may experience a postmodern form of "glow" caused by radioluminescent lenses, owing to all that X-raying lately. {:<)

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), October 15, 2001.

(The following are my personal opinion only. I may be wrong.)
After 30 years of clicking with all the best cameras in the market, I can tell that the quality of today's top lenses is better than what 99% of the photographers need.
Get a top Nikkor for example and try to persuade me that it's not good enough for you! Don't think so... Still, Leica delivers better images most of the times.
Why? Here is why:
1) Most of the times, behind a Leica you will find a better photographer. Who will spend $3000 for a camera and one lens? Either a good -enough- photographer or a collector. (Collectors don't really shoot and if they do they don't usually show their photos to other photographers) 2) Leica lenses do have a smoother reproduction of intermediate tones than other brands. This is obvious if the photos are decently printed or if you use slide film. They are among the sharpest too, not only stopped down but even at full aperture. 3) The most important: Many photographers are inspired just by holding a Leica M so they get better results. You think it's silly? It is not!
My wife says that when I shoot with my Leica I move differently than with my other cameras, that I am absolutely absorbed and my eyes sparkle! Most of my Leica images are better than with other cameras, not because Leica lenses are better (they are though!) but because Leica inspires me.
So, there IS the Leica glow. It's in your brain! Feel it while you hold her. She is simple but can do everything perfect. The final image only depends on YOU.
Best wishes for peace in the world,
Jordan.
http://www.jordan.gr


-- Jordan Koussis (jordan@koussis.com), October 16, 2001.

I think there are several optical phenomena that get lumped together as the"Leica Glow". The examples/explanations so far have all been on target. (I was fascinated by the story David Killick referenced) Generally the newer the lens design, the less the 'glow', as more and more aberrations get corrected. But also, the faster the lens, the MORE the 'glow', as there are more extreme aberrations to begin with.

Sometimes it's hard to separate 'glow' and 'bokeh', since both are subjective and both depend on optical effects that vary with aperture, lighting, focusing distance, exposure and the inherent contrast of a particular lens design.

It is also strongly influenced by lighting and exposure, to be sure.

Here are two examples made with the 90TE and the 35 pre-ASPH Summicron, lenses designed in the '70's but available new as recently as 1989 (90) and 1997 (35). They still show some 'glow' IMHO, even if not in the Summar category.

.

35 Summicron, f/2, 1/60

90 Tele-Elmarit, f/4, 1/1000

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 17, 2001.

Okay. Enough already. I think that "Jordan" has finally hit the nail on the head. It's the photographer guys - c'mon. I regularly use both an M3 and a Leicaflex. The pictures range from unbelievably gorgeous to mediocre or down right mistakes. That's how it is. The older I get and the more I practice produces better results, generally speaking. What does my fancy glass have to do with it? Don't get me wrong - it helps but probably psychologically because I love to use it, knowing that it is arguably the best 35mm stuff around. But it doesn't glow. When I nail a great shot - yeah, sure it "glows" but then, so did photos made with my Nikon equipment. F8 and be there guys. [Or I guess, f2.8 for that maximum "glow" and "bokeh" for some of us] Take it easy.

-- Bo Pryszlak (natabo@aztec-net.com), October 17, 2001.

i thought i've uploaded about 6 but only these 2 came out.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=399173&size=md

http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=399157&size=md

....... 1/30 at f2

By the way, how do i show a photo instead a link? (i supposed these will end up as links when i hit "Submit"

-- y.shawee (shawee@pacific.net.sg), October 17, 2001.

You think you got glow? Hasselblads (Gods own camera) not only create pictures that glow, the lenses themselves actually glow. You can use them as night lights.

-- ernie gec (erniegec@stn.net), October 18, 2001.

Here it is:

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), October 18, 2001.

Wow. That is the most incredible "Leica glow" I have ever seen. Jeez man, did you take that with an Elmarit? No way you could have achieved that creamy bokeh with merely an Elmar. M-lens for sure, anyhow. There's no way an R-lens could "glow" like that. Hang on a minute - gotta look at it again. God does it glow. Where is that sign anyway? It has to be in Wetzlar and this photo had to be taken in the 50's. Current signs just don't glow like that. And of course, Midland Leica signs have a destinctively different feel to them altogether, despite their neon being German-made!

-- Bo Pryszlak (natabo@aztec-net.com), October 18, 2001.

mmmh

when Leica lenses do not correct abberations fully it is called "glow" when other manufacturers do not correct abberations fully it is termed unsharpness, lack of contrast, or even an unacceptable tendency to flare.

when a new generation of Leica lenses comes out suddenly it is acceptable to talk about weaknesses in the previous generation and even admit that other manufacturers products might actually be a match or possible even better.

I went into a Leica dealership and the chap showed me pictures he had taken with a Leica 28 F2 and explained that he used Leica lenses for their ability with colour not sharpness then he showed me black & white pictures with the Voigtlander 28mm when asked if he had colour shots taken with the voigtlander the answer was conveniently no.

I still think Leica lenses are brilliant but they are not mystically or magically better.

Tapas

-- Tapas Maiti (tapasmaiti@aol.com), October 18, 2001.