Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/26

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

To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Summars & the Quest for Sharpness at the Expense of Imagery
From: Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:18:38 -0700
References: <3.0b26.32.19960926073320.009e9c10@mail.cdsnet.net>

Summars & the Quest for Sharpness at the Expense of Imagery

Other than the original Press Releases, I have never read anything good
about Leica's 1st high speed lens, the 50/2 Summar.

Book after book downgrades the lens and its so so
sharpness---recommending  in no uncertain terms not to waste time buying
or using it.

Examples showing average use often sell for the $50-75 range.  Mint
lenses seldom command more than $100, if that.

Yet it is one of my favorite lenses. 

In fact, I love that lens, but NOT for its sharpness--because it is NOT
sharp.

Shot with color film and wider apertures, the Summar will give some of
the most beautiful semi-soft focus results you will ever see.  And each
Summar is a bit different with different amounts of haze and scratches
adding up to different results.  They are great for romantic portraits
or landscapes.

Lost somewhere in Leica literature is the moment when we began to value
sharpness over imagery.   Everyone seems to talk about how sharp a lens
is, instead of what images they have taken with it.   

When I go back and look at the work of Gene Smith, Capa, or Solomon(no,
Solomon did not shoot Leicas, but he did popularize the "Leica" style of
shooting), I see incredible images that are considered among the best
ever taken--yet I usually see only passable sharpness.  Apparently they
did not realize their equipment was not good enough to give them great
results.

The point of  my Summar diatribe is that Leica made equipment 60 years
ago which was fully capable of making of taking the most memorable
photographs ever made.   Yet, the average Leica shooter usually puts up
their nose at such outdated unsharp lenses, and spends their time trying
to get the sharpest lenses instead of getting the best photographs.  

Not having the sharpest lenses has become an excuse for not getting the
best pictures--when in fact there is no relationship between the two. 
You don't even have to have a lens to take pictures.

For most photographers who believe they need to get the latest
"sharpest" lenses to improve their photography,  I maintain their money
would be better spent with better results if they kept their "OLD"
lenses and instead learned how to use them better through  photography
classes or seminars.   

Stephen Gandy


In reply to: Message from Eric Welch <ewelch@cdsnet.net> (Re: "PRO" CAMERAS)