[Leica] Lack of horror for the week

[aaron.sandler at duke.edu (Aaron Sandler)]

You're right about the low contrast of the lens, although T400CN at ei 200 
may have contributed as well.  The summitar is a collapsible 50/2 
LSM.  Mine was made in 1949, and came from ebay in shockingly good 
shape.  It's a little stiff in the collapsing and focusing action, but it 
works fine.  The glass looks great and the cosmetics are astounding, 
considering its age.  Some of the time I like the results, sometimes I 
don't.  I'm still trying to figure out under what conditions it pleases me, 
so I can try to limit it to those times.

Thanks for looking,
Aaron

At 02:12 PM 6/1/2004, you wrote:
>Looks like the exposure was pretty close, judging from the barn doors and 
>shadows.  I'm assuming the Summitar (a lens I'm not familiar with) is 
>medium to low contrast?  Which isn't a bad thing, actually more desirable 
>for B&W in my book.
>
>Chris Saganich
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lug-bounces+saganicc=mskcc.org@leica-users.org 
>[mailto:lug-bounces+saganicc=mskcc.org@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Aaron 
>Sandler
>Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 2:02 PM
>To: Leica Users Group
>Subject: [Leica] Lack of horror for the week
>
>Apologies to those wanting "less happy, more horror," but this week's
>contribution makes me feel all peaceful and relaxed.
>
>Again I used my many-bladed round-apertured Summitar, but stopped down a
>fair bit.  I like the lens like this.
>
>While I rarely go for the cheesey borders-a-la-photoshop (this is only the
>second time I've succumbed), I like the effect with this shot.  YMMV.
>
>http://www.duke.edu/~ajs2/PAW/2004_22/index.html
>
>Thanks for looking and/or commenting,
>Aaron