Re: [Leica] Subjective lens impression (part 3)

["Steven Blutter" <sblutter@earthlink.net>]

to conclude - would you still get the older chrome rigid 50?

i've been disappointed in my 50 summi collapsable in the 2 - 2.8 range;
corner out of focus is unacceptable.  i'm going back to the old elmar
collapsable 50 2.8 which can couple with the sooky-m also

- --Steven Blutter--
sblutter@earthlink.net
- -----Original Message-----
From: Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 3:05 PM
Subject: [Leica] Subjective lens impression (part 3)


>
>Rigid chrome 2/50 M Summicron:
>The rigid chrome M Summicron was introduced in 1956, and is identical
>to the NF Summicron (Erwin Puts). There are two different coatings: The
>first goes off after (long years) cleaning, and the front element looks
>grey; the second is blue to blue-violett and stays untouched. The lens
>shows its best results between f 2 and f 8, with an optimum at f 4.
>It's sharpness is so impressing, that I feel it as comparable to the
>current Summicron at f 4 or f 8. It is definitely more soft at f 2.0 or
>f 2.8, specially in the corners, but it's a "pleasant unsharpness", like
>the 1/50 Noctilux at f 2.8. Different, I don't like it's sharpness at
>f 11 or 16 (it's like the coll Summciron at f 8), because the loss of
>sharpness between f 8 and f 11 is too strong. The out-of-focus rendition
>is soft and pleasant, and tends more to the Summitar, specially in lower
>f-stops (f 2.8 to f 4), than to the coll Summicron. The modeling effect
>is less strong than from the coll Summicron. The color and grey tone
>rendition is very rich, specially in daylight up to (max) f 4, 1/250,
>E100s. The color saturation depends on the type of pictures: In lower
>light (1/60, f 4, E100s) the colors are very saturated, the shades are
>very rich; in bright sun light (above f 4, 1/250 E100s), the lens looses
>it's magic and is as fine as the Summitar or Summarit. It is my "one
>and only" 50 mm lens for rainy or strongly overcast days (if I look
>for color richness), and in b/w up to f 4, 1/250, 200 ASA (if I look
>for richness in grey tone rendition). The lens is a "cold", low to
>middle contrast lens.
>
>
>Black 2/50 Summicron:
>The "black" Summicron was introduced in 1969, and is - according to
>Laney - the officially 2nd version (thanks to i.e. Erwin Puts, we know
>better). I had this lens for some month, about 25 years ago, and I
>can give you my reasons why we "divorced" pretty soon - although you
>may call me something like a Summicron manic. Compared to the rigid
>chrome Summicron, my lens had an increased contrast but a reduced
>sharpness. The contrast agreed to the current 1.4/50 M Summilux,
>and the sharpness to the 2/50 coll Summicron. Maybe I had a "Monday
>production", maybe not. I was so disappointed by this lens at that time
>(in comparison to the rigid chrome Summicron), that I sold her pretty soon.
>In my memory (which may be errorous), the color rendition is comparable
>to the coll Summicron resulting from the enhanced contrast. Today, I'm
>sure, that I over-reacted 25 years ago, and that my expectations resulting
>from the rigid chrome Summicron (which I had sold to purchase the black
>Summicron) were too high. On the other side, I've never touched this
>type of lens again.
>
>
>Current 2/50 Summicron:
>The current Summicron was introduced in 1980. I bought it last year after
>reading Erwin Puts comments, which says in short: "simply the best".
>Whatever Erwin says on his site or in his recent Summicron evaluation
>and comparison, also agrees to my impression. The lens is astonishing
>sharp at f 2.0, and very sharp above. The color saturation is extraordinary
>rich, and the contrast is high. - But, it is not "my" Summicron (I sold
>it after half a year). For me, the color saturation in combination with
>it's high contrast was too strong, in all types of light, it reminds me
>on colors of children sweets (i.e. "Smarties" or "Easter eggs").
>Additionally, I missed the rigid chrome's softness in the out-of-focus
>areas and the richness in grey tones. In my mind, and maybe depending
>on my type of film-development-print-paper-combination, the contrast in
>the grey tones is too strong. To give an example: If you have a soft/
tender
>(?, phrase) subject, like a landscape in fog, you need to underexpose the
>b/w film at least 1/2 or one f-stop with this lens to get a negative,
>which's print agree to your memory from the scene. The rigid chrome
>Summicron gives a correct negative without correction. The lens is a
>neutral, high contrast lens.
>
>continued ...
>
>Alf
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>Alfred Breull
>http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm
>http://members.aol.com/mfformat/c-mf.htm
>
>