One week ago today we'd just suffered through two nights of near zero degrees, the wind was howling and our expectation for the low last Wednesday night was somewhere around 12°. What a difference a week makes. It hit 87° Fahrenheit here in Austin this afternoon. Time to put on a pair of shorts, grab a sun blocking hat, and hit the streets. What better reason to go out than to try and divine just how well a 40 year old lens might work on a brand new, big res, camera body?
The lens in question is one that pops up on the used market every once in a while. It's an Elmarit-R, 1:2.8, 90mm and it's old enough that they lens is inscribed "Leitz" instead of "Leica" which was used on more modern lenses (but not on Elmarit Rs). Mine is worn such that the numbers on the aperture ring are faded but the lens is physically solid with a silky smooth focusing ring and no play in it at all. I bought my well used 90mm Elmarit from a photographer friend for around $350 but a pristine, late model, three cam version can go from anywhere from $500 to $750. While the optical design is simpler than modern lenses picking up the lens informs you that the optics are dense, even though the system is comprised of four elements in four groups.
Mine is a type 2 variant which was a redesign adding a built-in, collapsible lens hood and, after 1983, a third cam for sending the camera lens information. The one I own, according to serial numbers, was built in 1983, and the entire run of Elmarit R 90mm f2.8 type two lenses, over a decade and a half, numbers about 16,000.
The camera of the day today was the Leica SL2 and I mounted the lens to the camera with a Novoflex R to L lens adapter. It's a "dumb" adapter so the lens is used in a totally manual mode but interestingly enough, if you dive into the sub-menus on the camera you can set the actual lens model, letting the camera know the basic characteristics of the lens. This is a good feature since the information is used for image stabilization as well as exposure metering. As a result, the camera actually records the aperture used and this is shown in Adobe Lightroom. I don't know but I wonder if Leica has also included in their in-camera lens profile information about the basic characteristics of each lens; including its amount of vignetting, and geometric distortion. If I used more R lenses on the camera I'd probably be motivated to find out but I'm happy with the combination as is. More information won't improve or reduce the quality of the lens...
I owned a copy of this lens back when I was shooting with a bunch of R series cameras in the 1980's and 1990's and I found that I was most successful if I stopped down to f4.0. Using it wide open was hit and miss and mostly limited my contrast and overall sharpness. An aperture of f4 cleaned up most of the performance issues--- but the lens really comes into its own at f5.6 and f8.0.
Since there's no autofocus I depended on the SL2's focus peaking. The FN button on the back of the camera allows one to toggle through four screens for shooting. One screen is totally clean with no information, one has basic information and a level while yet another one includes focus peaking. You needn't dedicate a separate button for this, you just toggle through the available screen options.
Today I shot almost exclusively locked in at f4.0. I like stuff to go out of focus in the background so it's a nice compromise. All of today's images were shot in the Natural profile as large, fine Jpegs. I did not apply sharpening to the images but did mess with highlights and shadows where I was looking for a different balance for a few of the shots.
Older lenses tend to have been computed and designed to perform best at certain distances. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this one performs best when used between 6 feet and about 30 feet. That's not to say it can't be used at infinity or at its close focus distance of approximately 25 inches, it's just that entering the range I described above gets me the best optical performance.
I've reviewed the photos shown here at 100% and I find them to be sharp, but not in the way my more modern Lumix 50mm f1.4 or the Sigma 85mm Art lens are. Those two show off a very high level of resolution along with a well balanced contrast. The Elmarit doesn't resolve anywhere near those lenses but the simpler design goes a long way toward delivering high contrast. It's a different look. Probably part of what gets described as a "film" look. But it is different from modern optics and so has a place in the equipment drawer for those times when contrast and acutance are more aesthetically important that a tamer, high resolution look.
In the end I have to say that I find the look the lens delivers to be really nice. I feel that many of the R series Leica lenses shared that high acutance and high contrast look but it was mainly attainable in the 35mm, 50mm, 80mm and 90mm lenses in the R catalog where you can really see this. The wider lenses were good in their day but nothing special compared to current wide angle primes.
If I intended to put together a group of R lenses to use with the SL2 I would have a small list. It would include the 50mm Summilux 1.4, the final version of the 50mm f2.0 Summicron, the 80mm f1.4 Summilux, this 90mm Elmarit and the 180mm f3.4 Apo-Telyt. While there are other good lenses in the range these are the ones that always delivered the best looks for me. If you are a real portrait geek you'd also add in the 90mm f2.0 Summicron but you'd be aware that it's softer wide open than the others. Not a fault, more of a feature. Stop it down and you'll find it fits right into the family.
When adapting wider lenses to the SL cameras I think I'm happier with some of the Contax Y/C and N series lenses. My current fave being the 28mm f2.8. But when considering wides I always come back to modern, well corrected zooms for the few times I use them.
Take a look at the images and tell me what you think. Do they look different from the zoom lens photographs I usually post? Maybe it's all in my head...
The camera does quite well at ISO 5,000. I did drop down to f2.8 just to stay under ISO 10,000.
Not bad for such a high megapixel camera!
21 comments:
Yes, it's different. Hard to describe, and purely subjective, but to me the background fuzzes out, rather than blurs out. I don't think it's as pleasing a look.
Very interesting! In certain situations this could be a really nice look. One example is the picture with the two girls holding boxes on the sidewalk. There is a lamp post then a man standing by himself on the right side of the frame.
This image has a kind of very realistic feeling 3D effect. It feels very natural to my sensibilities. I think if you set up a portrait in the right situation, you could get an extremely real feeling image that would give you a sense of actually having the person in front of you. Not having the distraction of extreme micro resolution lets you feel the image in a different way. Possibly a more romantic look at the world, yet it feels more real to me somehow. Perhaps the image is rendered in a way that is more similar to how we remember things?!?
I have a couple of those R lenses in my collection, you have inspired me to find the sweet spots! I have the Leica R to GFX adapter, and three different versions of the 90. The original version elmarit which has an extra element, the newer version, and the Summicron. All purchased years ago before they became popular again.
For some things I really think it will be special!
Thanks again for the inspiration!
Very nice images Kirk. I like how the lens renders these images. I have been considering using an SL2 with adapted film lenses, and this looks like it might be a worthy choice.
For MikeR, if I am seeing the same thing you are, the fuzz is an artifact of the image interacting with the sensor cover glass and is a trait of film lenses on digital sensors. The affect is reduced with longer focal lengths, being closer to the subject, and stopping down.
Compared to my experience with film lenses on a Sony body, I find these images very enjoyable.
PaulB
To each his own. Only because you asked, I’d say the Sigma 65mm is the SL2’s best friend.
I enjoy reading your blog every day.Always interested in all of travails from the cold weather to swimming to gear. Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are terrific doing your portrait work and theater work and of course a true lighting expert, but I have said it before, your walking around photos are just so blah, I know you could take some really interesting stuff around Austin besides snaps of looking up at buildings. But I guess that is your thing...anyway, hoping for unique and quirky angles once in a while.
I like the Elmarit R rendering, less contrast but still sharp. Its best application may be for portraits.
Will offer a respectful counterpoint to John Cecilian. I actually enjoy both your eye for a street scene and some of the recurring themes in shots of buildings. And over time your body of work reflects a changing Austin, one of the superpowers of environmental photography is how it can illustrate the passage of time and inevitability of change.
In support of pixtorial's comment; I also enjoy the relaxed Austin scenery. One of the highlights are the humorous sidewalk signage in front of various coffee shops and restaurants. We are getting less of that lately for obvious reasons, but they always brighten my day.
I can also see how some of those images may have more resonance for Austin locals than for some of us. No worries! After all, we pay so much per month for access to this content!
One additional thought; I really enjoy the occasional peek at mechanical and structural details, such as the heavy duty cable and beam structure in this particular blog entry. It speaks to my inner engineer. There is no need to expect those shots to become "projects" with meticulous and very dramatic lighting, or weeks spent waiting for just the right light and weather conditions for an "art piece". I enjoy them for what they are.
For R lenses on an SL or SL2, Leica corrects vignetting but not distortion, once you tell it what lens you are using. The late R lenses with ROM connections and the Leica adapter do this automatically. I've looked in the raw files for where the distortion correction would appear and it just says there is no distortion. The aperture that appears in the EXIF with a manual lens is estimated by comparing an exposure reading taken outside the camera (the little window on the upper left) with the exposure seen inside. For a longish lens, this works well, but the a wide angle it's pretty erratic.
Thanks for the input Johncecilian,
Just a note though, in case you've been living under a rock or something. We're in the midst of a really huge pandemic and we've been asked to socially distance (which means: stay away from each other) and to wear a face mask (a device which should fit under the chin and over the nose) which obscures people's faces. Most of my favorite work is portraits done in the studio but as you may intuit from the information above, that's not practical in Austin at this time.
Over the years I have tried to stress that the images shown here are not a "portfolio" and certainly are not intended to be a showcase for my best work. Instead, they are adjuncts to the writing and not the reverse. I can, if enough people would like it, refrain from including photographs on the blog altogether. It would certainly make the process of providing you with a near daily product easier and more efficient.
Since the photographs do seem to cause you some level of emotional distress I have refunded all of the fees and recurring monthly charges you've paid to enjoy the content here. Look for the refund on your next credit card statement.
I would love to see how blogging about photography can be done much better. Can you please send along your link to your blog so that we can learn?
Thanks. Have a nice day. Kirk
Hey Kirk
Another vote to keep the photos! I enjoy your tours of Austin and your "throw away" work. I think in 50 years many of those photos will be enjoyed by many Austinites. Photos taken "then and now" I always find fascinating.
The lens, at least to me on my monitor, look higher in contrast and are more color saturated then some other lenses you have used on your blog. Sharpness is certainly satisfying, I don't tend to look at the out of focus fore or backgrounds unless they are extreme in their distracting from the rest of the composition.
Enjoy the weather, temps in the 90's with like humidity are right around the corner.
Jb
I like your 90m architectural pictures. It's a myth you need an ultrawide angle for architecture: Canon make a 90mm TSE (OK it's for product photos too).
Mike R thinks that your backgrounds with this older lens "fuzz out" rather than "blur out." I noticed that, too, and I've seen it in other lenses. I prefer having a background that you can read rather than just a blur. So I think it is a positive feature. Also your colors in this set are quite nice. Not just intense, but a bit different. What's your reaction?
The main advantage of going to the same types of "test" images is you have a number of images with which to compare one lens to another. I am sure this is obvious to most readers here at VSL.
Hi Kirk -- not a comment on this post, but a question. Recently you mentioned you were going to post something about your method of copying slides. Have I missed this post, or is it still in your pipeline? Best regards, Neale
Hi Neale, It's still in the pipeline. Thanks for reminding me. I'll move it along. KT
Thanks for the reply Kirk, I was providing an honest suggestion to your photo taking on your walks to maybe shoot different angles or perspectives. Obviously you dont like to be criticized and you return with snark...It’s your blog obviously, your choice of attitude. And thanks for the refund. Haha
"...but I have said it before, your walking around photos are just so blah..." No snark here, just an honest and heartfelt response to your comment. And yes, it is my blog. But you are most welcome to your opinion and your refund.
Since this dead horse seems to still be moving (probably just gas), I’ll toss in my 2¢. I like the little respite those “blah” snaps provide from the rest of the internet’s onslaught of LLOOKITTHISAINTITWUNNERFULSAYITISSAYITIS!!! Just the thing to ease me into the morning over toast and a cuppa. They’re easy on the eyes and brain as loose, unforced, just-looking-around, and so have their own quiet value. I have tons of those.... Plus, as an ex-Austinite, I get a new peek at my old stomping grounds.
I had to laugh when I saw John's quote about "blah" images, followed by his commentary about you taking umbrage at his patronizing remarks. "...you don't like to be criticized and you return with snark...."
I'm afraid he just doesn't understand what you are offering here. I thought your responses were measured and not to overly reactive.
I wonder if writers of books also get lots of "helpful hints" in regards to their published work.
Keep doing what you are doing. John was right about one thing, it is your blog!
Post a Comment