Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/06/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Robert: That would be a very sweet part of the year indeed. My experience is with the Summarit (used with a IIf since the 1960s, and occasionally since 1993 with an adaptor for M3 and M6) and the 35 Summilix non-ASPH (used for the past six years). The Lux is a superior lens in most ways, I think: sharper, better contrast, and lighter. My only problem with it is its vulnerability to flare, made more of a problem because it is difficult to find lens shades for some versions. Do everything you can to locate a shade. There is an interesting article on the 35 Summilux by Dick Gilcreast at the LHSA "Viewfinder" site <http://www.pond.com/~lhsa/articles/summilux.html>. The Summarit was a revelation in the 1960s, but I hardly ever use it now unless I want really soft images. It's also a much better lens with a shade, and what a lovely shade it is -- rectangular black metal, vented. Bon chance!///Dick Baznik ___________ At 09:04 PM 6/13/99 -0400, Robert wrote: >Bonsoir, > > In a couple of weeks I ll probably be in the very sweet period of the year >when I will be able to afford another M lens (new or used? we ll see). I do >a fair amount of shooting in low light and my budget only allowed me the use >of a Summarit (SM with adapter) on my M5. I am thinking of either the 50 or >35 Summilux (non ASPH). Anyone knows first hand the performance of these 2 >lenses wide open (1.4 & 2) in comparison to the Summarit? > Richard E. Baznik Vice President for Public Affairs Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7021, U.S.A. Voice: (216) 368-2338 Fax: (216) 368-6674