Re: M3 and Wide Angle

["Charles E. Love, Jr." <cel14@cornell.edu>]

At 08:42 PM 9/11/96 +0200, you wrote:
>>At 06:20 PM 9/10/96 -0700, Stephen Gandy wrote:
>>
>>>Also the latest Summicrons are marginally sharper than the earlier ones.
>>
>>Hmm.  Not certain this is true.  In any event, the first, eight-element,
>>lens is probably a happier lens for use on colour slides and is an all-round
>>fine performer.  When Leica reduced the number of elements to lower
>>production costs, the compromise was a marginal reduction in quality.
>>
>>Marc
>>
>Well, I did an exhaustive test comparing all 35mm for the M, including the
>newest aspherical, using the Leitz optical bench and of course my own
>(magazine) testwall and a series of 'normal-use' pictures (however all on
>Velvia, technical Pan and tripod). My findings are as follows:
>The 8 element Summicron (in comparison with the newest 7 element
>Summicron)has a much lower contrast from f/2 to f4 in the center and the
>corners, more flare and more astigmatism. The resolution ia also
>significantly lower. The full aperture performance is absolutely no match
>for the new lens. From f/5,6 both are in the same class, but the new
>Summicron has a slight advantage, due to the better MTF values. There is
>therefor not a marginal reduction in quality but a significant leap
>forward.
>The Summilux is very flare prone at full aperture and is generally speaking
>only really useable for critical work (more than 12 times enlargment) from
>f/2.8 on. It is one of the Leica lenses that are easily outclassed by the
>competion.
>The Summilux ASPH is absolutely topclass. Its full aperture performance
>gives you really a punch in the eye.
>The same story goes for the Summicron 50 mm (newest version) againt the 7
>element (classical) Summicron. The new one is far ahead in all optical
>disciplines.The original Summicron was and is a good lens certainly from
>f/4, but wide open it is a low contrast lens, good in the center but weak
>in the corners.
>I asked the head of the optical department a few months ago why Leica
>continues its drive for optical perfection when the optical performance of
>the older generations already is sky high (or so the story goes). Well his
>answer quite frankly is that the older generations of Leica lenses are not
>so well corrected as many people assume. There is certainly room for
>improvement (and if you can reduce costs while improving the optical
>quality there is one clear winner: the Leica customer).
>
>
>
These results certainly square with my impressions--I have owned all of the
lenses mentioned (except, sadly, the ASPH!), and could see major differences
in use which paralled your (much more scientific) results.  One
question--how does the Summicron 35 mm. f2 compare with the Summilux ASPH at
the same apertures (f2, 2.8, etc.?)  

There are a lot of Leicaphiles who believe that the older stuff is better
than the newer--e.g., who insist that the first 90 2.8 Elmarit (1959-1974)
is better than all its successors, which is silly--I have used them all.
Perhaps this belief goes back to the view that since the M3 is better made
than its successors, so must the lenses be.  But that view ignores the
obvious fact of great progress in optics and computers and manufacturing
techniques.  I have always thought that Rogliatti was right when he
suggested that Leica's primary motive was improvement of optical quality
when it introduced a new lens.  (The one lens pair which may not bear this
out is, it seems to me, the 21 2.8 vs. the older 3.4--those seem to me, and
to others I have discussed this with, to be about equal.  But of course the
2.8 had to be retrofocus to make room for the metering.

A request: since it appears that you did tests on all the M lenses, would
you be willing to post your results?  I, at least, would be very interested.
Thanks.
Charles E. Love, Jr.
517 Warren Place
Ithaca, New York
14850
607-272-7338
CEL14@CORNELL.EDU