APO Lenses vs "Regular" Lenses?

My 50 APO is well worth it. 35 is promising.

For film and F 3.5 and smaller, I would not bother.

Every company has its own precise definition of APO. None are as good as Leica.
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
I've yet to see a good photograph ruined by chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.

And I've yet to see a bad photograph made better by the fact that it shows no signs of chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.
Click to expand...


Well, then you can simply use an old spectacle lens from your grandmother. Less expensive than a Noctilux.


Erik.
 
A few photos taken by APO lens owners beside the same taken with a boring ordinary top of the range might help a lot.

Surely all of you with opinions could take some photos in pairs to show us what you see...

Regards, David
 
I think I could be happy with just one lens if push came to shove and that lens would be the 35f2.8 C Biogon. Often, it is the only lens I take when traveling, especially if I am trying to go lightweight/simple.

But Leica makes a camera that is designed for interchangeable lenses so I don't often have the discipline to only carry one lens. I bought the first version of the 35f1.2 back when they were new and I thought I would be photographing in dim bars and honestly that never happened. Infrequently, I want something a bit faster than f2.8 so I hang onto the 35f1.2 figuring it is worth only $400 or so if I sold it.

The 35 C Biogon is sharp and the colors pop. It is small and does not block the viewfinder and reasonably priced so it meets all my criteria. For travel, I pair it with a 90f2.8.

I owned the 35f2.5 Color Skopar for awhile a long time ago. From what I remember and what I have read, it is a great compact 35 and I see Cameraquest has it for $409.

Seeing the results from the 35 C Biogon and 50 Summicron has lead me to question the need for the "new" APO lenses. Personally, I am sure I would see better results by going to a larger format or using a tripod more often.
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
I've yet to see a good photograph ruined by chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.

And I've yet to see a bad photograph made better by the fact that it shows no signs of chromatic aberrations, astigmatism or spherical aberration.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm not artsy person. Just a broadcast technician. IQ is strictly technical term to me.
I met Romanian in Canada. He was in the class by Tarkovsky. Worked as cameraman and many other jobs. Now he is full time photog.
His selling for $$$$ photos in the form of very large prints. Photos showing some architecture elements.
He has to switch from regular DSLR to more advance gear to provide enough IQ.

As technician who deals with IQ and gear I could see the benefit of APO and smaller cameras with thin sensor cover glass and matching dMF MP count.

I went to see Winogrand's prints. I was the dude who put glasses on and examined those prints closely. As big fan of his work I knew which lenses he was using. I could see the difference in IQ between Canon 28 LTM and 28 Elmarit-M.

APO niche is obviously not for world biggest images dumpster accessible via mobile phones. (Instagram). But demand for high IQ images ain't rainbow unicorn you are trying to bring here :) .
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Sorry, I'm not artsy person. Just a broadcast technician. IQ is strictly technical term to me.
I met Romanian in Canada. He was in the class by Tarkovsky. Worked as cameraman and many other jobs. Now he is full time photog.
His selling for $$$$ photos in the form of very large prints. Photos showing some architecture elements.
He has to switch from regular DSLR to more advance gear to provide enough IQ.

As technician who deals with IQ and gear I could see the benefit of APO and smaller cameras with thin sensor cover glass and matching dMF MP count.

I went to see Winogrand's prints. I was the dude who put glasses on and examined those prints closely. As big fan of his work I knew which lenses he was using. I could see the difference in IQ between Canon 28 LTM and 28 Elmarit-M.

APO niche is obviously not for world biggest images dumpster accessible via mobile phones. (Instagram). But demand for high IQ images ain't rainbow unicorn you are trying to bring here :) .
Click to expand...

I'm not particularly artsy either. I don't doubt that a trained eye, under the right circumstances, may be able to examine two photos and tell the difference between a Canon and a Leica lens. But that's of no worth to me. Photographs just don't speak to me through their sharpness or lack aberrations. I guess it all boils down to what we call a good photo and what kind of photography we're into (I'm not into architectural.).
 
Erik van Straten said:
This is very interesting. I have a Summilux 50mm f/1.4 type 1 from 1959 that is finished in black paint. I have the same lens in chrome. The black lens is at full aperture much sharper without a filter than the chrome one. Could it be that the black lens is more corrected for chromatic and spherical aberrations, with other words, could it be an APO lens? If so, why are not all the Summiluxes and Noctiluxes corrected in that way? The color of the coating of the black lens is completely different from that of the chrome lens.


gelatine silver print (summilux 50mm f1.4 v1 no.1703963) leica mp. At full aperture.

Erik.

50402849457_4440d87fdd_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Most of the time with older lenses ‘sharpness’ comes down to how well the lens is adjusted to focus with the rangefinder, and how well it is collimated and meets qa/qc criteria. Look at Lens Rentals’ site and see sample-to-sample variation for modern lenses, then understand that lenses in the 1950s and 60s had way more sample variation when they left the factory than modern lenses do today.

The first version 50/1.4 is optically the same between chrome and black versions (that of course is not to say that individual lenses won’t be better or worse) and is an achromat.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
You can fix transverse chromatic aberrations in software in colour images. You cannot in monochrome. The sharpness advantages are much more obvious in monochrome. Axial chromatic aberration plays havoc with both systems.

If your technique is good, you will notice the difference in sharpness and colour reproduction unless you are really unobservant. The additional advantage with these modern lenses is better transmission, decreased flare and designs that provide better edge-to-edge sharpness and control of spherical aberration, which minimises focus shift, than older lenses. And they are close to apochromatic across the visible spectrum, unlike a lot of older ‘apo’ lenses that are technically apochromatic at three defined wavelengths and one focal distance but have aberrations away from those wavelengths and distance. The Leica 90 AA is a classic in this regard.

The real trap is that people think these lenses will make their photos better. Additional sharpness and colour reproduction won’t make your photos better on their own unless you are a scientific or technical photographer.

Marty
Click to expand...
All true. I was thinking primarily of the purple fringing produced with non-apo corrected lenses (not an issue with B&W) - some of which cannot be easily corrected in post. But Marty is absolutely right here about the apo benefits to B&W as well.

I stand corrected.
 
The other thing to consider is that as design and manufacturing technology improves, lenses MUST BECOME "BETTER" to justify a higher price point.
 
Andrea Taurisano said:
I'm not particularly artsy either. I don't doubt that a trained eye, under the right circumstances, may be able to examine two photos and tell the difference between a Canon and a Leica lens. But that's of no worth to me. Photographs just don't speak to me through their sharpness or lack aberrations. I guess it all boiles down to what we call a good photo and what kind of photography we're into (I'm not into architectural..).
Click to expand...

I'm glad we were able to settle on me level. Me and never doesn't mean everyone else.

I never seen photog selling prints from digital camera for 8K-10K USD until I re-met him and seen them. And since then it was clear how advance gear and better lenses are part of high selling price. For some. At some market niches.
I won't pay 80 dollars for those huge prints. But I don't live in the big space home with custom made interior where some of those prints goes, either.
 
I bought the cv 50 apo really just out of curiosity, half intending to sell it. Once I used it I was really astounded at what it produced to the point where for all but portraits or if I need 1.4, it has displaced my other 50’s as my most used 50. With how good the CV is, I can’t see spending the money on the Leica offerings though.
 
The Leica 50 APO is not worth eight times as much as the corresponding CB 50 APO. Is it?
 
You already have two pretty sharp lenses that you seem happy with in 35 and 50. Probably no real reason to go for something sharper unless you had a specific need.

I can tell you I can see a difference with the CV APO 50 on a Leica M10 Monochrom compared to my other 50s, but that’s a bit more resolution than than he M240. I would absolutely recommend it if someone was looking for their first 50 and wanted something in the vein of the Summicron or the ZM Planar, but I’d be hesitant to recommend it in addition to one of those lenses unless some specific desire was articulated.
 
Freakscene said:
Most of the time with older lenses ‘sharpness’ comes down to how well the lens is adjusted to focus with the rangefinder, and how well it is collimated and meets qa/qc criteria. Look at Lens Rentals’ site and see sample-to-sample variation for modern lenses, then understand that lenses in the 1950s and 60s had way more sample variation when they left the factory than modern lenses do today.

The first version 50/1.4 is optically the same between chrome and black versions (that of course is not to say that individual lenses won’t be better or worse) and is an achromat.

Marty
Click to expand...


Marty, can you explain why the black version of the first Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v1 has a much different color of the coating (orange/red) than the normal chrome version (yellow/blue)?


Erik.
 
Erik,
I just picked up a French 18mm Apochromat Kinoptk Paris F2. It usually is used for Cinema. The aperture can only be seen after removing the Contax I, II mount. It focuses using the built in Contax onboard gearing. I am marking the aperture stops using a Canon 7s Cd meter by placing the lens wide open on the sensor and marking each full stop as I rotate the base using the meter scale on the Canon. Can this work ok or am I missing something with linearity? The lens produces a 28mm circular image with is fine...supposedly Apochromatic is a good thing?
Thanks,
Thomas Shafovaloff
 
One more item Erik, I have this Rectaflex that I am putting new shutter cloth in and noticed the flange distance is 43.5mm. I have some Minolta MD glass and the aperture at the camera mount is pretty close in size to the Rectaflex, the MD has a flange distance of 43.72 from what I can tell. Possible to use the MD glass on the Rectaflex I was comparing the mounting hardware and it is so close to the Minolta...would be nice to use an MD 50 1.4 on it as the Rectaflex glass is pricy.
 
Shafovaloff1 said:
Erik,
I just picked up a French 18mm Apochromat Kinoptk Paris F2. It usually is used for Cinema. The aperture can only be seen after removing the Contax I, II mount. It focuses using the built in Contax onboard gearing. I am marking the aperture stops using a Canon 7s Cd meter by placing the lens wide open on the sensor and marking each full stop as I rotate the base using the meter scale on the Canon. Can this work ok or am I missing something with linearity? The lens produces a 28mm circular image with is fine...supposedly Apochromatic is a good thing?
Thanks,
Thomas Shafovaloff
Click to expand...


Yes, I think you can use a good lightmeter for marking the f-stops, like the old "T" (true) markings.
Kinoptik lenses are great, I wish I had a 50mm f/2 with a Leica-M mount.

About the Rectaflex I really don't know anything. I know the camera only from pictures.

Good luck,

Erik.
 
raid said:
The Leica 50 APO is not worth eight times as much as the corresponding CB 50 APO. Is it?
Click to expand...

A bottle of Ch. Petrus 2010 goes for US$3500
A bottle of Ch. Mouton 2010 sells for US$1000

Is the Petrus 3.5x better? Damned if I know but that's what the market will bear.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Marty, can you explain why the black version of the first Summilux 50mm f/1.4 v1 has a much different color of the coating (orange/red) than the normal chrome version (yellow/blue)?
Click to expand...

Leica changed coating technology and materials abruptly and within lens models without necessarily advertising those changes. I have owned two Canadian 75 Summilux lenses that reflected completely differently. I didn’t see much difference in performance between those lenses, but it happens.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top