Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/08/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In message <199608022032.QAA10739@mh004.infi.net>, Marc James Small <msmall@roanoke.infi.net> writes >I've owned three collapsible, >two rigids, two NF's, two second-generation, and three current-generation >lenses. Of these, the two NF's were the most satisfactory to me in terms of >both contrast and resolution. The second-generation were the least >satisfactory, as well as being the most poorly constructed. The current >version was deliberately designed to overcome the poor reputation from which >the second-generation lens suffered. >The first-generation rigid was the next most satisfactory, followed by the >collapsible. The current version came next. The second-generation lens, >politely, is a dog. The market bears this out: there's little demand for >used second-generation lenses and they usually sell at a discount compared >to the earlier or later versions. What I can't quite grasp yet is why there are five types of Summicron being described here as having optical differences- ie 1] Collapsible 2] Rigid 3] Dual Range 4] 2nd generation (2nd optical design) 5] 3rd generation (3rd optical design) but in the Leica Collector's Guide there are only three optical designs. It appears that the first optical design was used in the first collapsible screw Summicron, the M equivalent collapsible version, the rigid version, and the dual range version. Is this correct? And if so, what causes the different optical performance? I really want to understand this before I buy another 50mm Summicron- I'm currently tempted by the thought of a collapsible screw version to use on both my IIIC and my M6 and selling my 3rd gen... -- joe b.