justforever
Active Member
www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/msystem/49.pdf
This is a good way to get a chance at comparing most of the current models.
Enjoy!
DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.
DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
APO lenses are they really too sharp
- Thread starter vishalvora
- Start date
www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/msystem/49.pdf
This is a good way to get a chance at comparing most of the current models.
Enjoy!
laurent_ldp
Well-Known Member
Vishal,
I don't know if the problem is about the sharp benefit of the apo-lense that is good or not for portraiture. I think that it is your eye that do the best view. But if the sharp side is not good for you, say me if you use a 400asa film, how is your sharp view? and how is your portrait? I think nice, but you don't see the bad side that you don't want to accentuate. I think that portrait photography is not to do with film that have less than 100asa, and for me, the best is more than 400asa.
What is important for me, it is the quality of the lense. I have the 75mm/1.4 and it is very nice to use it. If you have a direct light on the lense, and sometimes it is good to have it, with the 75mm you don't have trace of light, or the sign of the diaphragm. The 90mm is not build for this.
And in the portraiture 1.4 vs 2.0 is a difference.
Good choice.
Laurent
I don't know if the problem is about the sharp benefit of the apo-lense that is good or not for portraiture. I think that it is your eye that do the best view. But if the sharp side is not good for you, say me if you use a 400asa film, how is your sharp view? and how is your portrait? I think nice, but you don't see the bad side that you don't want to accentuate. I think that portrait photography is not to do with film that have less than 100asa, and for me, the best is more than 400asa.
What is important for me, it is the quality of the lense. I have the 75mm/1.4 and it is very nice to use it. If you have a direct light on the lense, and sometimes it is good to have it, with the 75mm you don't have trace of light, or the sign of the diaphragm. The 90mm is not build for this.
And in the portraiture 1.4 vs 2.0 is a difference.
Good choice.
Laurent
vishalvora
Well-Known Member
Dear all,
Many many thanks for all your help and info. Just one more questions, is there a difference between APO and Asph? These terms seem to be used in most posts, I feel they are the same but I have seen adverts selling APO lenses and True ASPH lenses. What is the difference if any.
Thanks...
Vishal.
Many many thanks for all your help and info. Just one more questions, is there a difference between APO and Asph? These terms seem to be used in most posts, I feel they are the same but I have seen adverts selling APO lenses and True ASPH lenses. What is the difference if any.
Thanks...
Vishal.
H
hektor
Dear Vishal,
APO is short for apochromatic, and means in simple terms the lens is corrected for all wave-lengths of light.
ASPH is short for aspherical, and means that certain elements within the lens have been ground with an aspehrical surface.
The terms are not mutually exclusive.
To follow-up on my earlier posts, I prefer the pre-ASPH lenses, even though I do have three of them. They are superb technically, but to my eye lack the indefinable "smoothness" of the earlier, not so well corrected, lenses. One of my favourites is the 1:3.4/180 Apo-Telyt-R which is, as the designation signifies, and APO lens but does not have any aspherical lens surfaces.
Trust this is all as clear as mud.
Justin
APO is short for apochromatic, and means in simple terms the lens is corrected for all wave-lengths of light.
ASPH is short for aspherical, and means that certain elements within the lens have been ground with an aspehrical surface.
The terms are not mutually exclusive.
To follow-up on my earlier posts, I prefer the pre-ASPH lenses, even though I do have three of them. They are superb technically, but to my eye lack the indefinable "smoothness" of the earlier, not so well corrected, lenses. One of my favourites is the 1:3.4/180 Apo-Telyt-R which is, as the designation signifies, and APO lens but does not have any aspherical lens surfaces.
Trust this is all as clear as mud.
Justin
L
leica_cl_m
Dear Vishal,
APO/ASPH differences might be read at Erwin Puts/LEICAs pages about lenses (in short: ASPH is "only" a special form of lens and APO means without any legal restrictions, that three basic colors are send to the right place on the film, not only two as in the usual fotografic world).
But in practice I would say that in direct comparison between SUMMILUX 75mm, CL 4/90mm and SUMMICRON 2,0/90 APO ASPH the last one had problems only in strong light situations: Sun from the side or the front. I wouldn't have thought that that could be possible. If that is important for You (supporting Laurents argument), older lenses could be fine.
B.t.w. Leica glass 75mm "classic" and 90 APO/ASPH seems to have the same "imagery" (Erwins words..) at 5,6 or smaller - astonishing that these high performance lenses from Canada or Germany show difference only in low light situations (or with darkening filters).
I think it could be a long (own!) discussion about Pros and Cons of aspherical LEICA constructions against the "older" lenses. Anyway
Try to compare the lenses, may be from the shop to outside. It is worth to see which type is good for You. There is no "too sharp", i think, there could be "too much contrast" in the modern constructions, when used open? What is better than to see the details of life on the wall on a fine grain slide, including a hair of the person You portrait? Even the grainy films are "sharper" with the sharper lens.
I write this because today was a absolutely clear air in my town, and i mixed some pix: 24mm ASPH (i think the M-lens with the highest contrast) and C4/90.
Have fun & good n/light!
Giselher
APO/ASPH differences might be read at Erwin Puts/LEICAs pages about lenses (in short: ASPH is "only" a special form of lens and APO means without any legal restrictions, that three basic colors are send to the right place on the film, not only two as in the usual fotografic world).
But in practice I would say that in direct comparison between SUMMILUX 75mm, CL 4/90mm and SUMMICRON 2,0/90 APO ASPH the last one had problems only in strong light situations: Sun from the side or the front. I wouldn't have thought that that could be possible. If that is important for You (supporting Laurents argument), older lenses could be fine.
B.t.w. Leica glass 75mm "classic" and 90 APO/ASPH seems to have the same "imagery" (Erwins words..) at 5,6 or smaller - astonishing that these high performance lenses from Canada or Germany show difference only in low light situations (or with darkening filters).
I think it could be a long (own!) discussion about Pros and Cons of aspherical LEICA constructions against the "older" lenses. Anyway
Try to compare the lenses, may be from the shop to outside. It is worth to see which type is good for You. There is no "too sharp", i think, there could be "too much contrast" in the modern constructions, when used open? What is better than to see the details of life on the wall on a fine grain slide, including a hair of the person You portrait? Even the grainy films are "sharper" with the sharper lens.
I write this because today was a absolutely clear air in my town, and i mixed some pix: 24mm ASPH (i think the M-lens with the highest contrast) and C4/90.
Have fun & good n/light!
Giselher
O
oskar_b
Vishal and others
In relation to the smoothness Justin eludes to sometimes referred to as “Leica creaminess†by the oldies. The new Aspheric lens and even some of the new (non APO and Asph) lenses have very harsh looking out of focus areas (which the Japanese call Bokeh). The older lenses had a smoother almost creamy transition into the OoF part of the image. The newer Leica lenses are very harsh in comparison.
Craig
In relation to the smoothness Justin eludes to sometimes referred to as “Leica creaminess†by the oldies. The new Aspheric lens and even some of the new (non APO and Asph) lenses have very harsh looking out of focus areas (which the Japanese call Bokeh). The older lenses had a smoother almost creamy transition into the OoF part of the image. The newer Leica lenses are very harsh in comparison.
Craig
Mmmm, maybe, maybe not Craig. Take a look at the page in the link below. This was referenced on another forum somewhere recently.
http://www.jimarnold.org/galleries/leica_35_test/
http://www.jimarnold.org/galleries/leica_35_test/
colorado_jeff
Well-Known Member
Ok..another dumb question from the Leica newbie. I got a brand new M6 TTL last year (a LHSA model) and at the same time bought an older, never used Summicron 2/35. It was sealed in the box, never used. The serial number is 3579xxx. I think this is a non ashpheric..am I right?
Justin, I AM confused!!
Jeff in Texas
Justin, I AM confused!!
Jeff in Texas
H
hektor
Dear Geoff,
Yes, that 1991 lens does not have any aspheric elements.
Don't be too enthusiastic about ASPH lenses. It is an economical way of achieving pretty good correction. I am told that some years ago the EU imposed strict pollution requirements on the makers of optical glass containing lead. This meant in compliance the cost of manufacture of the glass types used by Leica and others became very expensive and the designers were put to work to find similar optical performance with more prosaic glass types. Hence the change in optical character. One of the "big wheels" at Leica said to me a few years ago, that in his opinion the last of the pre ASPH lenses will be the Leica lenses to have!
Jeff, what confuses you?
Justin
Yes, that 1991 lens does not have any aspheric elements.
Don't be too enthusiastic about ASPH lenses. It is an economical way of achieving pretty good correction. I am told that some years ago the EU imposed strict pollution requirements on the makers of optical glass containing lead. This meant in compliance the cost of manufacture of the glass types used by Leica and others became very expensive and the designers were put to work to find similar optical performance with more prosaic glass types. Hence the change in optical character. One of the "big wheels" at Leica said to me a few years ago, that in his opinion the last of the pre ASPH lenses will be the Leica lenses to have!
Jeff, what confuses you?
Justin
I am a European and I have never heard this argument before.
The main reason for using aspherical lenses is not ecconomic, since aspherical lenses are more expensive. The main reason for aspherical lenses is the fact that you can reduce the number of elements of a lens. Thus those lenses are smaller and therefore lighter. Because M-lenses of a given focal length should be lighter than the corresponding R-lenses, you find more current M-lenses with aspherical aurfaces than R-lenses.
Regards Jochen
The main reason for using aspherical lenses is not ecconomic, since aspherical lenses are more expensive. The main reason for aspherical lenses is the fact that you can reduce the number of elements of a lens. Thus those lenses are smaller and therefore lighter. Because M-lenses of a given focal length should be lighter than the corresponding R-lenses, you find more current M-lenses with aspherical aurfaces than R-lenses.
Regards Jochen