Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 20 Jan 98 at 20:33, thibault collin wrote: > I admit that most of the excitement twinkling around the M's is 90% voodoo > and 10% true logic! I love the M's even though I'm currently using a Nikon. > The nikkor lens (50mm f/1.8) is obviously better than the 1960s summicron I > have and it's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of fact! The summicron > has really poor contrast and vignets from f/2 to around f/4. At smaller > apertures it's good. Good but not awsome and at least the nikkor is clearly > better. The debate concerning M's versus reflex leads to real conclusions, > ie. the noise, the absence of lightning mirror...But what the hell, Robert > Doisneau used reflex cameras and did good shooting I think. Yes, but towards the end of his life at least Robert Doisneau used a Leica R6 as his reflex camera! (There's a very charming photograph of him sitting at a table holding it.) In any case, given that lots of people on this list report experiences different than yours with the 50/2 Summicron, does it seem possible to you that your particular example of this lens may not be typical? Perhaps it needs an internal cleaning and should be collimated to your camera. I ask purely as a matter of curiosity -- it doesn't really matter much to me if a 50/2 Summicron is less sharp than a 50/1.8 Nikkor; this just seems to run counter to most of what I had heard in the past. - -Patrick