Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] nokton v. summilux
From: Tom Finnegan <tomf@piengr.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:11:15 -0700

Geez B. D., I think you might be overreacting just a tad. I was just saying 
that I was surprised how decent the performance was for such a cheap 
throwaway lense, I was not waxing eloquent. I was merely trying to describe 
it's performance to those that might be interested. Yes it is truly crappy 
at f16/22, but from f4 to f11 it is quite good, and while wider open it 
does get a bit soft and low contrast it is still quite useable. Note that I 
said it is 'useable', not 'stellar', or 'crappy'.

If I was a starving student I wouldn't hesitate to use it. If I was a 
professional photojournalist I wouldn't consider it for a second. I bought 
the 50/1.5 and the 85/2 Jupiter lenses, each for $75, simply so that I 
could see in practice which of the two focal lengths worked for me on the 
M. For the previous ten years I had used only the 35/1.4 (pre-asph). After 
playing with the two I decided I really liked the 50 but wasn't so sure of 
the 85/90. So, after slowly saving up my money, I bought a 50/1.4 Summilux 
from the honorable Dr. Yao for an excellent price. I will probably keep the 
50/1.5 for occasional use on a IIIf. I'll post some example pictures 
tomorrow on the MSN site.

Tom Finnegan
Seattle

___________________________________
Come on, guys...Tom, what you have just described is a truly crappy
lens...."Stopped down to f16/22 everything goes quite
blurry and isn't really useable unless you like pictures with an extreme
depth-of-blur." "Wide open it gets pretty soft and low contrast." Can you
imagine how everyone would react if Leica produced a lens like that? Or how
everyone would be laughing their Leica caps off if a new Nikon or Canon 
lens
got a review like that.

Okay, it's incredibly cheap. But that's because it's a lousy lens that only
gives a decent performance in the mid-range...which means that it isn't an 
f
1.5 to f 16 lens, it's an f8 to f 11 lens.

And I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't save money on older lenses or
non-Leica brands lenses....Only that it doesn't make sense to wax eloquent
over a lousy lens.

B. D.