Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/23

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Lens evaluations (was 50 summicron)
From: "William Harting" <wharting@adelphia.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:03:27 -0500
References: <NBBBIDNIGLFOKNLJCPLHIEINEPAA.ddh@home.com>

I too have been watching the furious and passionate (and informed) debate
between what seem to be the two fairly close ends of the Leica lens
spectrum: the great and the merely near great. It often seems the near great
can only be recognized by some succeeding lens design achievement, vis the
35 Summicron and the ASPH 35 Summicron.

Like Dan I rarely have the opportunity to experience more than one version
of a lens at a time. My first Leica lens was the collapsible 50 Summicron, a
miracle lens for me because it came with a camera I, with weak eyesight,
could actually focus. The first images I printed (using a collapsible 5cm
Elmar as an enlarger lens) showed me levels of sharpness, especially wide
open, and what I have come to appreciate as Leica grain (rendered in TriX)
that I had never experienced. I followed that purchase with a 3.5 Summaron
35, and again, shooting wide open (yeah, 3.5 isn't that wide) achieved what
for me was breathtaking depth of field and center crispness that I no longer
was looking to improve. Early shots with that, in a dark poolhall in
Provincetown, gave me images I could not otherwise have hoped to produce.

Both lenses still serve me well.

They have been supplemented with what I now know to be a fat Tele Elmarit 90
2.8, which to my eyes is sharper than either of the older lenses. This was
purchased for me in 1969 in Singapore with no knowledge other than it was a
Leica lens: no testing, no reading, no LUG feedback. A shot in the dark that
turned out to be lucky. Later, in a trade, I got a Super Angulon 21 f3.4,
which also astonished me, and continues to do so.

On the other hand, I now know, or am at least aware, that later lenses are
"better," if that means first of all better corrected, or faster, meaning
essentially that what I do I could do in less light. I have always been
pleased by the way the Leica behaves in the dark, and so it would be
unnatural for me not to want a Noctilux to get that extra two stops, for
example. Until I hit the lottery, I will have to find those two stops in ei
3200, or continue to practice shooting at 1/4.

All of which I guess is to say that the least of the Leitz lenses are
(perhaps this is just a rationalization) not too bad a compromise.
Nonetheless I am eagerly awaiting the arrival of a first-version (thanks to
LUG I now know these things) 35 Summicron and will possess a glass extra
half stop and I expect to see some improvement as the Summaron moves toward
retirement. While I am ready to be surprised, I don't expect to find myself
running from the darkroom with a dripping print to show my skeptical wife
what an improvement in corner sharpness we can now enjoy together.

bill

In reply to: Message from "Dan Honemann" <ddh@home.com> ([Leica] Lens evaluations (was 50 summicron))