Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Will When I made the statement about quality of image, I did not clearly state which I thought was superior. It is the Summilux, without any reservations. My apologies for the lack of clarity. Jerry Will von Dauster wrote: > Jerry, > > Right on both counts. Like many, or maybe most, Leica fans I've owned a > number of collapsible lenses over the years, let's see; 3.5 Elmars in > both SM and M, 2.8 Elmar original version, two Summicrons, three > Summitars (usually came with a IIIf), and 2 of the current design > Elmar-Ms - the first traded off for something I didn't actually need as > much, sigh. Oddly enough, the only one I failed to extend completely > for a shoot was the first current Elmar-M. > > As for the second point, yes the Summilux has everthing I like about > Leica lenses: sharpness, good bokeh, excellent tonality, etc. It will > remain my go-to 50, and probably my go-to lens overall. But the Elmar-M > is no slouch either. It is usable wide open (unlike the original > version, IMO), and very sharp around the mid-apertures. Flare is well > controlled. To me it produces a nice look all its own. > > And yes, the version I just bought is chrome, so the weight difference > is negligible. > > Will von Dauster > Denver > > Chattier than usual today... > > On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:48 PM, Jerry Lehrer wrote: > > > Will > > > > I have found that he who uses a collapsible lens, oft forgets > > to erect it. When erect, my f2.8 Elmar was not that much > > shorter or lighter than my Summilux. But oh, the difference > > in quality of image! > > > > Jerry > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html