Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/13

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] nokton v. summilux
From: "Steve LeHuray" <icommag@toad.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:07:20 -0400

Dan,
The Summilux cannot be 'older' than the Summarit as the Summilux was the
replacement for the Summarit/1.5 and the look of both lenses is similiar.
Steve
Annapolis

- ----------
>From: "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>
>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>Subject: Re: [Leica] nokton v. summilux
>Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2000, 1:43 PM
>

> Tom ( I cut the long post) Finnegan-
> I am currently using an older black Summilux 50- the one with the clamp on
> shade, and 14163 cap on an M6, and a Summarit-M on an M4, and to be honest
> with you- I cannot tell the difference in the two when looking at the
> negatives or the scans.
> I owe this to one of three things- one, either the CLA that Sherry did on
> the Summarit brought it within specs of the older uncleaned Summilux- that
> certainly doesn't look like it needs cleaning!. Two- I use HP5 or Delta 400,
> and they just don't have the resolution to show the differences of these two
> lenses. Three- My eyes are going, and noone has told me!
> I shoot rarely wide open- but when I do, I am sure that my camera shake
> would hide any difference! Stopped down- and I have used a resolution chart
> for the f5,6 to f11 range on both lenses- and I couldn't tell any
> significant difference, and that is the situation in which I find myself for
> the most part- shooting at f5,6 to f8. I have noticed that the prices or the
> Summarit has come down recently, and buying a user in decent condition,
> having Sherry or someone do a good CLA on it, and you would have a Leica
> lens, reasonably fast, and half the cost- at least- of a Summilux.
> Dan ( My opinion only) Post
>