Re: Summicron 35mm f/2,0.

[Edward Meyers <aghalide@panix.com>]

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, captyng wrote:

> At 08:07 PM 15/09/1997 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, captyng wrote:
> >
> >> Has any of the European LUG members kept a copy of the Chasseur d'Images
> >> "fiche technique" with the definition test of the last spherical version of
> >> the Summicron 35mm f/2,0? Lucien? Pascal? Oddmund? I remember having seen
> >> one maybe a year-or-so ago. Please answer privately. Many thanks.
> >> 
> >> Gerard. 
> >> 
> >Having been the person responsible for lens tests on a major photography
> >magazine in the U.S. from about 1959 to 1966 I would like to make a
> >few observations.
> >If you are concerned with wide-open f/2 on the early 35mm f/2
> >Summicron ( I own a bug-eye one) remember the following...
> >Lens tests are performed ( I hope) on a tripod. When we make 
> >pictures with our lens wide-open at f/2 it's generally done
> >hand-held and at a relatively slow shutter speed, such as 1/30 or
> >1/60 sec. Image results at slow shutter speeds are usually
> >not as sharp as at high shutter speeds, such as 1/250 or 1/500 sec.
> >I suspect that camera and/or subject shake have more to do
> >with sharpness than the optical quality of the 35mm f/2
> >Summicron, vintage 1968.
> >Another consideration is that tests are usually done on a flat plane.
> >So when edges are not so sharp wide-open, it could be caused by
> >curvature of field. But so what, I rarely use my Summicron to
> >photograph flat subjects. People, scenes, happenings have depth.
> >Shoot pictures, not lens test charts. This could be a reason
> >for not buying the new high-priced fancy lenses. I paid about
> >$175 for my 50mm f/2 DR Summicron just three or four years ago.
> >Another wonderful lens....Ed Meyers
> >
> >
> 
> Hi Ed,
> 
> I agree entirely with what you wrote above. I decided to buy one of the
> last  35mm f/2.0 Summicrons as the lens is extremely compact compared to
> the new f/2.0 and f/1.4 asphericals. I also mark the best aperture on the
> lens by changing the white of the engraved aperture number in green. Has
> been useful to me for some pictures where definition was key and does not
> impact normal picture taking. The quality of the old spherical 35mm f/2,0
> indeed is excellent. 
> 
> Gerard Captijn.  
> 
> 
Bob Schwalberg, famous photo writer and former E.Leitz employee in the
1960s told me about the "K" rule, named for Mr. Kisselbach (spelling?)
of E. Leitz, Wetzlar. It is that, especially with wide-angle lenses,
the smallest aperture you should use, before image quality goes down-
hill is the divide-by-4 rule. You divide the focal length by 4. The
result is the smallest aperture you should use. For a 35mm focal
length, 35 divided by 4 gives you between f/8 and f/11. So f/11
should be okay, but at f/16 you lose. I think it was Kisselbach...
Now that Bob is gone I wish I had taped our conversations through
the years. He didn't want me to do it, however. In 1966 he told me
about an experimental M camera with a zoom-type finder system.
Ed Meyers