[Leica] Re:lux Q

[nicholsj at edge.net (Jim Nichols)]

John,

It's not just the modern lenses that fall into that category.  I owned a
73mm/1.9 Hektor LTM that was supposed to be a good portrait lens.  I never
found it to satisfy my needs, and it certainly wasn't a real "long lens". 
I sold it.  I also tried the 50mm/1.5 Summarit LTM, but found that, at
least in the example I owned, it was not up to the usual Leica build
quality.  It's gone also.

I still have an Imarect Finder with  a "click" for 73mm.  Maybe some day I
can afford a 75 of some sort.

My 50mm/3.5 Elmar and 50mm/2.0 Summitar are oldies, but goodies.  They also
work well with my 50mm Briteline finder, which, for us old guys with
tri-focals, makes life much easier.

Jim Nichols


> [Original Message]
> From: John Collier <jbcollier@shaw.ca>
> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> Date: 10/12/2004 9:26:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re:lux Q
>
> I can't agree with you there. Lenses that may be wonderful for one 
> person might be stinkers for another. It all depends on what you like 
> to shoot. I have sold several Leica lenses which just did not perform 
> well in the conditions I needed them to:
>
> 21/3.4SA: Really only an f4 lens as it flares badly wide open. There is 
> a fix on the web somewhere which involves disassembling the rear 
> optical group and blackening the edges of one of the elements. Bought 
> the 21A to replace it (see below).
>
> 21/2.8A: Too soft in the corners when wide open and close. Hardly 
> surprising I suppose. Switched to 24/2.8A which is much better in this 
> regard. Again not surprising considering the reduced coverage.
>
> 50/2: Too much veiling glare for my liking. Both the Noctilux and 
> SummiluxA normals that followed are fine.
>
> 90/2.8 TE : Flared with light coloured tones never mind light sources. 
> Both the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M and the 90/2AA that followed are fine.
>
> The people who bought the lenses from me are happy so my habit of 
> shooting wide open into light sources may be a bit rarer than this list 
> would seem to indicate.
>
> Not Leica bashing mind you! I love my 35/1.4 Asph and the lens which 
> replaced the ones I sold.
>
> John Collier
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Summicron1@aol.com wrote:
>
> > um, you wanna take pictures or admire optical charts?
> >
> > If you want to take pictures, get any one you can find, Leica made no 
> > bad
> > glass, with the possible excption of a couple of dogs in the late 
> > 1940s.
> > Otherwise, they all, repeat ALL, excellent, at worst.
> >
> > If you wanna get the best optical charts, I can't help you. I take 
> > perfecctly
> > lovely pictures with a mid-50s summicron, a late-50s or early 60s 35mm
> > summaron, and a very early 21mm Super Angulon.
> >
> > lovely optics, all of them.
> >
> > charles trentelman
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 10/12/04 1:12:21 PM, lug-request@leica-users.org 
> > writes:
> >
> >
> >> Well,
> >>
> >> The "no pixels" bug (at least not all the time) finally got me. I 
> >> must have
> >> been hanging around here too much...
> >> So, my CL got a bigger brother,  a M4-2 in good shape, and now I'm 
> >> thinking
> >> of buying a 50 Summilux for it. No Summicron, no Noctilux, sorry.
> >>
> >> Should I go for the 1st version or the last one of this beauty?
> >>
> >> Every pro and con is warmly welcomed.
> >>
> >> Merci,
> >> Philippe
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information