Happy 2017 to all my readers! Thanks for reading this last year and I hope that 2017 will bring more Leica stuff. At least we get a new M, so it will be good. One more practical thing: I’ve received some emails from readers that they never got one of my newsletters, even though they filled out the form twice. Well, the secret is that I’ve never send a newsletter…yet. There WILL be newsletters in 2017, but I have to find a workaround for that.
Happy shooting and thanks again for reading!
Shot in Glaskogen, Sweden, with Leica M9 and CV 15/4.5 v3
For a video job that my wife had, I had the chance to play a bit with a continuous light set made by Hedler. While I seldom use artificial light (apart from available light) I use flash if I have to use extra light. Usually, this is with head shots, where I have to produce a series in which everything has to look the same. Light, colour, framing, it all needs the same look. For that I use a couple of Speedlite flashes, mainly because they’re light weight, small, don’t require a power outlet and they do the job.
What you see is what you get…
Working with Speedlites (or similar small flash units) has disadvantages. First, Speedlites don’t have modelling light, so focusing can be hard in near dark situations. A proper studio flash has a modelling light that allows you to focus, compose your picture, etc. A second disadvantage is that there are too many options on these flash units. You can use them on- and off-camera, in a million different modes (TTL, ETTL, multi, auto, master, slave) and these modes are often activated by buttons that have multiple functionalities built in. If you’re not familiar with all the functions, it is a misery to work with these things. A third disadvantage that is related to the second one, is that the flash output can not be regulated from your camera. Yes, I know, with the newer models you can set your flash power from a high-tech flash trigger that is attached to your camera. When you don’t have this system, you will have to push some buttons on your flash, which is often way above your eye level, so you’ll just have to guess which button to push.
Of course this light is quite harsh. I only used one light and no modifier. I think it works for this shot. Leica M240 with 50/0.95 NoctiluxTurning her face to her right means more shadow in the nose area. You could work this out with a reflector, or a modifier on the light. Leica M240 with 50/0.95 NoctiluxAlso, with my wife standing almost against the wall, the shadows are very black and harsh. Again, here it works, but this is not what you should try for commercial headshots. Leica M240 with 50/0.95 Noctilux
Are you still with me? Well, the good news is that continuous light is very straightforward. What you see is what you get. No hassle with triggers, sync times, flash durations, a million different flash modes etc. You just adjust the output of your light by turning a knob. Thank you! Also, you can see what tiny alterations with your light do with your shot. If you’re starting off with extra light and you don’t have a clue how artificial light works, it might be a good idea to start with continuous light. With a small flash unit, you’ll have to have a lot of experience to get your light straight at once.
I couldn’t completely overpower the ambient light
So why aren’t all photographers using continuous light? Well, there are some disadvantages as well. Although I wouldn’t recommend staring into the bulb of the Hedler 1000x, it’s output is NOTHING compared to a flash unit. Even a small flash unit. This becomes painfully clear when you’re trying to get a shot in daylight, where you want to rule out the available light. Even in my house on a clouded day, I couldn’t completely overpower the ambient light. Is that a bad thing? No, not if you’re working with both available and additional light. Yes, if you want to work with artificial light only when there is much ambient light.
Here I used a umbrella (white) to lower the contrast. You can instantly see what the modifier does. Leica M262 with 50/2.4 Summarit
Another disadvantage is the fact that a flash unit provides an enormous load of light in a small package. It’s output is very short and very intense. Continuous light has a moderate output, but can do this a very long time. For video, continuous light is obviously the only way to go.
it’s far more comfortable for you as a photographer, but also for your model
In shots like these, where I use a real door to create a beam of light, the ‘what you see is what you get’ thing is a real bonus. Leica M262 with 35/2.4 ASPH Summarit
So who’s it for? Of course, videographers need continuous light, but for some photographers, this type of light may be interesting. First, if you’re new in artifical light and you want to learn what light does, how it reacts to different modifiers and to your model, this is a very good thing to start with. Second, if you have a studio and don’t need to worry about ambient light and power outlets, I would definitely use the best continuous light kit I could afford. Why? Well, it’s far more comfortable for you as a photographer, but also for your model. Your eyes and brain get used quickly to continuous light, whereas the intensity of a flash can be annoying for your model.
I had this set with just one modifier and I am by no means a master in additional light. But maybe that makes the case only stronger. Continuous light is like a paper and pencil, before you move onto paint and canvas.
In this shot, I used the Hedler 1000X to light up my product shot. It lacked the power to overcome the ambient light, but it still works.
Today I came across a very interesting project. Paul Ripke, a German photographer, has been working with a Leica M9 since 2012. He has been documenting his travels with this marvelous camera (I don’t need to tell you, right?), but after he while he thought:”Why not give other the pleasure to work with this camera?” and that’s when his ‘VerLeica’ project started. It’s a funny name: in German, ‘Verleihe’ means ‘renting out’, so you get the joke. Anyway, on the website you can find some photographers that already took part in this project. The idea is simple: if you propose a project that is interesting enough, you can take the M9 package with you and get your project done with the Leica. The site is in German, but I guess Paul also speaks English. All you have to do is send your proposal to bewerbung@verleica.de
If it doesn’t work you got at least the pleasure to look at the beautiful portfolios of some brilliant photographers…
I took this picture on July 1st 2014 in the back garden of our friends in Amsterdam. Susannah, mother of Arend, wanted some pictures of her two sons and the children of her day-care centre (very small, just a few kids, organic food, playing outside, lovely!). Just before we left on our canoeing trip through Scandinavia, Susannah was in her final weeks of the pregnancy of her third child, when we received a text in the middle of the night: “Arend has passed away…”
Thinking that she made a mistake, my wife called her. It wasn’t a mistake. Arend had stayed at home for a few weeks with some flu like symptoms. But that day it all went wrong. He woke up on the couch and fainted. When the first aid team arrived, they found Susannah trying to resuscitate her son. It didn’t work.
Four days later, Susannah gave birth to her third son, while her first born son was lying in repose in the same house.
Today is the day Arend would have celebrated his sixth birthday. His family will, but without him being physically present.
Why am I telling you this? Well, our friends were confronted with the enormous expenses of a funeral. Of course, they weren’t prepared for this. When everybody asked if there was something they could do for them, Susannah replied: “You can help us pay for a decent funeral”. And that’s what happened. In no less than a few days, all the expenses were covered by gifts alone.
And now they want to do something in return. Susannah and Mark founded the Arend-Lucas fund. A fund for parents that lost a child and cannot afford a decent funeral. Here you can find some information. If you don’t understand a word of dutch, here’s the number you can transfer your money to if you want: NL77 TRIO 0390 3354 79
I had the chance to play with a Hedler LED continuous light set. It’s funny what you can do with these things and I like the ‘what you see is what you get’ thing. I might elaborate a bit more on this.
Leica M240 with 50/0.95 Noctilux and Hedler Profilux LED 1000X
My experience with the Summarit range has been limited to the Leica Summarit 75/2.5. Until recently, because Leica Netherlands was kind enough to let me have a go with the entire Summarit-M range. The Summarit series was completely updated not long ago and though they are regarded as an ‘entry level’ range, there’s actually nothing wrong with it. They are the smallest, most light weight and least expensive Leica lenses available.
They are the smallest, most light weight and least expensive Leica lenses available…
If you’re used to DSLR weight and volume, the Leica Summarit system will blow you away…
Some people might say that the financial benefit can be undone when buying second hand Summicron lenses. True, an occasion Summicron lens can be less expensive than a new Summarit. But what if you prefer a new lens? Professional users usually prefer new equipment, because of the VAT they don’t have to pay. And what about warranty? Usually, this is a little easier with new equipment as well.
The Leica Summarit-M 50/2.4 has a lovely rendering.
Leica Netherlands was also kind enough to lend me their M262 demo camera. A good idea, because it’s not uncommon at all that people that are in for the Summarit range, are also in for the M262. When I unpacked the kit, I suddenly realized that I had a complete ‘Leica entry level kit’ to my disposal. Let’s get to the numbers to see what the actual price difference between the M262-Summarit combo and the M240-Summicron combo is. The prices are in Euros, including VAT.
And this kit will cost you 19.135 Euros. The difference is 5805 Euros. Almost an extra M262 as a backup body.
The difference is 5805 Euros. Almost an extra M262 as a backup body…
Half a stop less fast than the 35 cron, but fast enough to play with your DOF.
Of course, it’s almost impossible to compare the Summarit range with the Summicron range. The Summicron is faster, has better glass elements, is made with an even tighter tolerance. But both types of lenses are made for the same thing: taking pictures.
There’s not just the financial difference. A Summarit lens has less glass than a Summicron lens and therefore is even lighter. Let’s make the same comparison, this time for the weight. Numbers are grams.
Leica M262: 600 grams
Leica Summarit-M 35/2.4: 197 grams
Leica Summarit-M 50/2.4: 190 grams
Leica Summarit-M 75/2.4: 325 grams
Leica Summarit-M 90/2.4: 345 grams
So this kit comes in at 1657 grams.
Leica M240: 680 grams
Leica Summicron 35/2: 254 grams
Leica Summicron 50/2: 240 grams
Leica Summicron 75/2: 430 grams
Leica Summicron 90/2: 475 grams
And this kit weighs 2079 grams. A difference of 422 grams. Less than I expected, but, let’s be honest: almost the entire weight of the 75 Cron. For this comparison I used the weight of the black lenses. With the Summarits, the difference between black and aluminum is minimal, but with the Summicrons, the chrome versions are considerably heavier than the black lenses. On a more practical, realistic side, the weight difference will be felt more when the camera is worn in hand or on a strap, than it is when worn in a bag. So if you’re walking a lot with a 90mm lens in your hand, you will really notice the difference between the Summarit and the Summicron.
A long, fast but still light weight lens.
With the updated versions of the Summarit range, the new lenses look better, in my opinion. Especially the 35mm and the 50mm with their screw on, rectangular hoods. Compared to my 35 Summicron with its plastic hood, the new Summarit looks a thousand times better. Both in silver as in black. The only exception are the silver versions of the 75 and 90. I’m not a big fan of the black focus ring, but I guess Leica didn’t have a choice.
I’m currently working with all individual lenses and reviews will follow. So far, I’m pretty excited about the Summarit lenses! For now, I’d like to conclude that the Summarit range might be more interesting than you’d think. Leica ‘entry level’ is still much better than you’d probably ever need.
Let’s be honest: the 35 2.4 Summarit looks spectacular in silver on a silver (faux Hermes) body…
The people at Lomo have been busy lately. They released three new lenses in a relatively short period. I tested the tiny Minitar a few months ago and as I’m writing this review, I’m working with the Lomo 50 New Jupiter.
But first things first. Why would you need a 20mm lens? Well, since the difference between a 21 and 20mm lens is so small, I’ll happily refer to an earlier article if you want an answer to this question.
It’s a tiny lens, but the biggest part of the lens is IN your camera
Build quality and ergonomics
The Russar 21 is very light. Weighing less than 100 grams, this is one of the lightest lenses I have ever used. That’s a good thing. The second thing that is immediately noticed is that the Russar has a very large back element and that this intrudes into the camera quite uncomfortably. I didn’t dare to attach the Russar to my M240 first, because I was afraid it might touch the sensor. It doesn’t, but it’s close.
A third thing, that probably has something to do with the low weight, is that the Russar doesn’t feel as sturdy as a Leica lens. Or a Zeiss lens. Or even a Voigtländer lens. It feels a bit flimsy, partly because the aperture is set by turning a plastic ring very close to the front element. There are no fixed stops, which is a benefit for video, but a disadvantage for photography. You can’t set the aperture without looking at the lens. Having said that, most people will use this lens at a preset aperture and preset (hyper)focusing distance.
This is where the lens shines. Shot against the sun. I love the flare.
Again, shot against the sun, the tiny 20/5.6 Russar delivers a beautiful renderingBut the vignetting and cyan corners are worse than I’ve ever seen…
There’s not much else you can do focusing-wise, because this lens is not range finder coupled. It means you’ll have to guess your distance, or use live view. Guessing your distance is not so hard with a 20mm, because of the extremely large depth of field, so that’s not really a problem.
The focus ring is nice and smooth and the focus throw is quite big for such a wide angle lens.
This is not a lens for the typical Leica shooter that is interested in sublime sharpness and rendering…
Sharpness, bokeh and rendering
You don’t buy this lens for sharpness, nor for bokeh. The Russar isn’t sharp at all. Not in the middle, not in the periphery. But to be honest, this is not a lens for the typical Leica shooter that is interested in sublime sharpness and rendering. In fact, this lens isn’t even really suited to be shot on a digital Leica M. The cyan corners are worse than I have ever seen on any lens. Using a wide angle profile in the lens menu doesn’t change a thing. You’ll need software like Cornerfix to get rid of the problem. I’d recommend shooting this lens on film bodies only. Here is where it shines.
Bokeh is virtually non-existent on a 20mm 5.6 lens, but the closest focus distance of 50 cm will make it easier to get some of your shot slightly blurred. But again, you don’t buy a 20/5.6 for its bokeh.
The rendering is where you buy this lens for. This is what an old Russian lens looks like: soft, flaring, heavily vignetting, saturating… very old-school, very retro, terrible spherical abberation, what else do you want? Yes, I know, most of these characterics are ‘lens errors’, but if you like the look of it, why not?
On film, the Russar works a lot better. No cyan corners, less vignetting. A true Lomo lens.Shooting on film with a slow lens at night is a challenge. But challenges are good!
The true sharpness and rendering test. Note the corners.And here’s the crop. As you can see, this is not a lens you’ll produce razor sharp images with.
Conclusion
Well, there actually is a pretty good reason why not. The Russar does have a lot of distinctive looks and characterics, but delivering a sharp image is not one of them. And that’s why I wouldn’t buy it. If you’re shooting film mainly, in the ‘lomo style’, this could be an interesting lens for you. But it comes at a price: with 600 Euros it is 100 Euros more expensive than the Voigtländer 21/4 color skopar. The Skopar won’t get you the crazy vignetting and old-school softness of the Russar, but it will give you very, very sharp contrasty images with much less distortion than the Russar.
It isn’t the sharpest 50 ever made, but that’s not what you should be interested in when shopping in the Lomo shop. It does give you a dramatic, almost cinematic look that makes you think about lenses of the old days. To be continued.
Sony A7S with Lomo 50 Jupiter 3+ (the lens is very much back focussed and my M240 is for maintenance in Germany…)
As you know I shoot most of my wedding work with a 35 and 50. These lenses just work for me and I am used to the way they render a scene. A few years ago I added the tiny 28 Elmarit for two reasons. First, I wanted a slightly wider lens for group portraits. And second, I wanted to have a ‘not too wide angle’ lens for street and travel with the lowest weight possible. Now, a few years later, I’ve come to appreciate the 28mm focal length in general a lot better and I absolutely adore my Leica 28 Elmarit.
Sometimes you need all the space there is. Here on a boat in Amsterdam, very close to the couple.
So why should you get a 28mm lens for yourself? Well, there are six reasons to get one!
1: It’s not the same as 35mm
Some people say that the difference between a 35mm and 28mm lens is not so big. I think they’re wrong. A lot of photographers either work with a 35-50, or 28-50 combination, but even if you already own a 35mm lens, adding a 28mm to your collection will definitely make a difference. While the horizontal angle of view of a 28mm (65 degrees) versus a 35 (54 degrees) doesn’t result in a spectacularly different view when one landscape is shot with the two different lenses, it does make a huge difference in everyday photography. As far as I’m concerned, the difference can be found in anything that happens closer to your camera.
Some people say that the difference between a 35mm and 28mm lens is not so big. I think they’re wrong…
In general, there’s a lot to see in 28mm images. I like that.
2: draw the viewer in the shot
The 28mm focal length possesses the unique quality to really give the viewer the impression that they were there when the picture was taken, but without the downside of wider lenses: distortion. Let me elaborate on that. While the 50mm is regarded to be a ‘standard lens’, I think it’s just a little but too long to be standard. Yes, it’s a standard piece in my photo bag, but if there’s one focal length that resembles the way we perceive the world, it’s 40mm. And the 35, just a tiny bit wider than the 40, can be considered to be the first wide-ish angle lens. The 28mm however, is a true wide-angle lens, that has the characteristic of enlarging the difference in size between objects close-up and far away. And this is something you can play with.
Getting close is not always without risk. I found purple confetti in my boxershorts and even my socks…
If used well, with a 28mm you can really draw the viewer into the shot that you took. That’s why this focal length is appreciated by documentary photographers. They often want to show something ( a person, a thing, a group) with a context (the background, the foreground and all that surrounds the subject). And the 28mm is the perfect tool for the job. You can get more in your frame and get closer to your subject, but as soon as you’re abandoning the 28mm of an even shorter focal length, it starts to show in you image. And that’s the next point.
The 28mm focal length is probably the best balance between the field of view and the distortion…
3: 28mm is true wide angle without the distortion of wider lenses
You’re probably familiar with the effects of a wide angle being used close up. It distorts faces into funny looking things. Nice as a gimmick, but not very usable for the serious photographer. But wide angle lenses have other characteristics that you may or may not like. Depending on the way you frame a picture, straight lines will no longer be straight, resulting in a distorted view of what you see in real life. Photographers that are into architecture photography usually do not like this and therefore use very expensive tilt-shift lenses. The 28mm focal length is probably the best balance between the field of view and the distortion. If you get a good lens, the distortion can be zero.
Connecting an event to a context: a job that requires a 28mm
4: Garry Winogrand had a 28mm
Garry Winogrand is probably the most well known 28mm photographers. He used 21, 28 and 35mm lenses, but he favored his 28mm for this reason:
Ideally, I wish I had a lens that took in my whole angle of vision, without mechanical distortion – that’s the headache with these things. Ideally, that would probably be the most interesting to work with. The 28 is probably where the mechanical distortion is least limiting – much less limiting than a 21. It’s closest to the angle of attention. It’s pretty close to at least my angle of attention. Probably the 21 is more so, but its just extremely limiting. You have to use it very carefully.
Winogrand often shot with just one hand with his lens set to f11 or f16 and using the depth of field of this setting to get as much in focus as possible. See how this is done in this tutorial.
28mm images can be messy…
You can even draw yourself in the image…
5: 28mm is a challenge
The 28mm lens is not an easy lens to use. The drawback of ‘getting a lot in your image’ also means that all these individual components have to work together to achieve a good composition. Stated otherwise: 28mm images can be messy. But if you get all things right, this can result in very, very powerful images. The 28mm is a challenge, so to say.
6: You don’t need a second mortgage to get a good one
There’s another reason you should buy into a 28mm lens. They are relatively easy to make, so even the cheapest Leica 28 (the Elmarit) is a very, very good lens. Not just ‘for the money good’, but downright terrific. The Elmarit is sharp, contrasty, but also very small and very light weight. An M9 or M240 with a 28/2.8 Elmarit can be carried around all day, without feeling the weight. One of the reasons I often take this lens on trips in the outdoors, where weight is even more important compared to city trips.
Tiny, light weight and very sharp. The Elmarit 28 is perfect for outdoor adventures.
So now that I convinced you in getting a 28mm lens for your Leica, you’ll probably want to know which one to get.
Here’s my review of the Leica Summilux-M 28/1.4 ASPH
Here’s my review of the Leica Elmarit-M 28/2.8 ASPH
As I’m working on my article for Digifotopro Magazine, this is one of the pictures that made it to the selection. I took it on our first day of paddling throough Glaskogen Reserve in Sweden. We had a warm day, even though it was only May yet, and my wife took a swim in the cold water. We made a fire afterwards and dried up, watching the flames. Good times in the great outdoors.
