Re: [Leica] Comparison of screw and bayonet lenses

[Bruce Feist <bfeist@flock.org>]

Hi, Richard and other Leicaphiles;

Excellent timing!  I just finished some semi-formal testing of my Leica lenses, which
include the two that you described.  In fact, I was using them on a IIIc, too <g>.  I
also use a Minolta X700, so I tested its lenses at about the same time, so this has
some relevance to the recent Leica/Minolta thread as well.

The three lenses that I tested were the 50mm Elmar f/3.5 and 135mm Hektor 135 f/4.5
that you described below, as well as a 50mm Elmar f/2.8 that I have, and two lenses for
a Visoflex: the 65mm Elmar f/3.5 and a 90mm Summicron f/2.

I tested the sharpness by taping a magazine ad to a whiteboard, bringing it outside,
putting my camera on a reasonably stable Bogen tripod and attaching a cable release,
and for each lens writing relevant info (lens name and shooting aperature) on the
whiteboard and shooting.  In most cases I stopped down 2-3 stops on the lens; I
occasionally tried some other combinations as well.  My film was Kodak Gold 400 (a
pretty poor choice, although it was adequate to tell the differences between the
lenses); I used it basically because I had it and wanted to finish up a roll.  I'll
probably redo the tests with Royal Gold 25 one of these days; I'd like to be more
systematic about trying different aperatures, too.

The final result: with one exception, the Leica lenses were uniformly very sharp --
noticeably sharper than any of the Minolta lenses.  I was able to read fine print on
the magazine ad on the 4x6" prints that I had made, using an 8x loupe.  The exception
was the Hektor, unfortunately; it was comparable to the best Minolta lenses, which is
still pretty good.  I suspect that at least part of the problem with the Hektor is that
I was relying on the Leica's rangefinder focusing, and (unlike with an SLR) the
accuracy of focusing does not increase with focal length.  In other words, the Hektor
needed more focusing precision because it's a 135mm, and it didn't get it.

Bruce

> From: rurmonas@senet.com.au (Richard Urmonas)
>
> Peoples comments would indicate that the newer lenses are superior to
> the older lenses.  As I use a IIIc I was wondering if the lens characteristics
> are noticably worse than the newer lenses, or are the differences so small
> that in practice (i.e. "normal photography") they would not be noticed.
>
> At the moment I have a 50mm f3.5 Elmar from 1954 and a 135mm f4.5 Hektor
> from 1955.