[Leica] Re: Advice needed on 35mm lens for Leica M

[Grduprey at aol.com (Grduprey@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/13/2005 9:19:47 PM Central Standard Time, 
bdcolen@earthlink.net writes:
ROFLOL! :-)

Glow=flare, distortion,softness


Come on BD

Remember the 35 Summilux M is a 1961 design, and from what I have read in 
magazines and tests of that time, it was the best lens of its type for many 
years.  Yes, by todays standards, 40+ years of optical progress later, it 
does not 
measure up to the current Asph version and those from other companies whose 
similar lenses are of much newer design.  But then it is still a very top 
performer.  Glow = flare - so far the one I bought does not show it.  Glow = 
distortion - have not seen even a tiny bit yet.  Glow = softness - yes wide 
open I 
have seen the softness and the GLOW.  But stop it down a step or two and it 
seems to disappear.  Lets keep the comments in their proper perspective.  
From 
what I have seen the current M lenses are pretty much at the top of the 
heap, 
when it comes to performance.  Several of the new R zooms have gotten 
comments of 
being the best zooms the testers have ever seen, and these by publications 
who have bashed Leica for many years.  No they are not perfect, but they 
deserve 
more credit than what many want to give them.  I will hopefully be replacing 
my 90 Tele Elmarit, the thin flare prone version of the lens with a 90 Apo 
Summicron one day soon. The 35 Summilux so far is destroying the performance 
of 
the much praised CV 35/1.7 Nocton I have, which is almost as flare prone as 
my 
90 Tele Elmarit, and in some cases it is even worse.  How come no one 
bitches 
on them ?  And I'm sorry just because the price is much lower, is no reason 
it 
does not perform better as it is a much newer design and technology.  The 
painted CV lenses are reputed to have the finish wear off almost 
immediately, 
even flake off.  This to me is completely unacceptible with todays paints 
and 
application technology.

Gene