Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Guess I had a West Coast Summarit since the specimen once in my possession exhibited the internal "gunk" that precipitated this thread. The external surfaces did not show a problem. Even though I did unload the lens (with a full disclosure of its problems) without regret, it served me well. Before it turned sour, it produced a small portfolio of images from the installation several years ago of an old and dear friend as the Dean of the a theological seminary on Long Island, New York, in a cathedral where a Leicameter atop the M3 could not measure the illumination (or absence thereof). A guesstimate of 1/15th sec at a half click this side of wide open (elbows propped on the pew in front of me) got me useable negatives, although some require considerable manipulation in printing. The venerable and cherished dual range 50 mm Summicron is, properly handled, no mean performer in low light situations. Mine showed its stuff in the available light (1/8th sec at about f/5.6 or f/8 for depth of field and again propped on a pew) of a church in Mobile, Alabama and again in the Cook County office building in Chicago, Illinois where I took some "from the hip" photographs the day after I had been ejected for photographing inside without the requisite permits. On Fri, 26 Dec 1997, Marc James Small wrote: [snip] > Folks on the West Coast claim that Leitz lenses of the '50' are prone in > general to volatilization of oils causing a misting of internal elements > but, from earlier discussions on the LUG, this has not been much noted east > of Denver. Written by: Roy C. Zartarian | Prophets are not without honor 25 Stuart Street | except in their own country Newington, CT 06111 USA | and in their own house. http://www.connix.com/~royzart Written with the assistance of a labrador retriever whose chin is on the keyboard. Any typos are his fault.