Re: [Leica] Leica-Users List Digest V2 #305

[Summicron1 <Summicron1@aol.com>]

This is re: Alf's reviews of leica lenses

How come you left out al of my lenses? Or did I just not see them? Of course,
being poor I have all the lenses nobody else wants -- a 3.5 Elmar, a 21mm F4
- -- but that doesn't make them bad.  

One questions about the 21 super angulon f4 -- If you look inside it from the
rear you can see that it looks as if the edge of the lens elements are not
blackened all around, but only halfway. I've seen this on my lens and on one
other that was in a lot bettter shape than mine, so I suspect Leica did it
intentionally, but why?

It's a nice lens, by the way. A lens shade helps a LOT with the flare and at
f-4 or f-5.6 it is sharp as a tack all over the place. 

One thing I like about the older lenses that you guys may be losing with your
new aspheric things is something Ivor Matanle discusses in his book
"Collecting and Using Classic Cameras." 

 The older Leica lenses, he says, were intentionally left with small
uncorrected errors which gave the resulting images a slight roundness. He says
on page 62: "It remains Leitz policy not to design lenses purely to achieve
high resolution of flat two-dimensional test charts, but deliberately to leave
intact a modest degree of aberration and curvature of field to improve the
rendition of three dimensional subjects. This policy causes photographs taken
with Leitz lenses, both ancient and modern, to have quite distinct  qualities
of 'roundness' of image and 'plasticity' which Leica users cherish."

I've seen old timers photographing trains at the museum in Ogden (utah) with
old screw mount Leicas and pre-war Elmars who swore that that lens alone gave
the best rendition, unmatched by anything modern. If you think about it, there
is truth to this: Part of what gave those old classic photos (steichen,
Eisenstadt) their beauty and charm was the errors in the lenses which softened
the rough edges, gave them a tiny soft-focus at some aperatures, and rendered
a pleasing image. Contax lenses of that same era were considered harsh -- I
have one and agree.

Does Leitz still follow this design policy, does anyone know? Or is optical
bench sharpness the new standard.

Not that it matters to me. Being a journalist I am poor (it's in the contract,
I think) and so am "stuck" with the leavings of the rest of the Leica world.

And such lovely leavings they are, too.

Charlie Trentelman
Ogden, Utah. (State motto: Mormons? What Mormons? Have you seen our seagulls?)