Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1995/12/16

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

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: 35mm vs. 50mm Summicrons
From: Ed Reading <ereading@oz.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 00:45:37 GMT

My 35mm cameras are Leicas because I consider them the best made, and the
lenses are both sharp and produce good contrast. (The Nikons I used to use
were about as sharp but delivered less contrast, and therefore less tone
separation. I like Leicas.)

That said, I think extended discussions about whether 35 Summicrons are
better/sharper/whatever than 50 Summicrons are pointless on the face of it.
Even if you compared film shot on test charts, with working distances
adjusted for magnification, and were able to determine resolving power and
contrast for each--for, say, the two best examples in the world--where would
you be? Would you refuse to use the 35 (or the 50) because the other was
sharper? And that's under controlled conditions, presumably with film as
sharp as the lenses (slow film). If you're trying to make picture
comparisons with 400 ISO film, I think you'll never reach a conclusion,
because the film's resolving power will max out before the lenses will.

I think such a focus on pedigree and specification may well apply to camera
collecting, but it is irrelevant to the making of pictures.
---
Ed Reading
ereading@oz.net
206-774-4977


Replies: Reply from Eric Welch <ewelch@gp.magick.net> (Re: 35mm vs. 50mm Summicrons)