[Leica] Old Aristocrats vs. New

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Erwin Puts: >>>Stephen Gandy and now Mike Johnston noted that in their
opinion the M4 is the last Leica build to standards where cost would be
of no concern...But as soon as an opinion is transformed into a fact, we
need proof [snip]<<<

ERWIN!! Do you work for Leica?!? <ggg>

Only kidding, my friend...

With all due respect (and so others know, Erwin is a colleague, having
written articles for me at _PHOTO Techniques_, and I do have great
respect for him), I would submit that we do NOT need proof. Or rather,
that we have all the proof we need. Granted, all I am talking about are
the tactile and visual impressions of quality, not objective
engineering-level performance standards. But as far as tactile and
visual impressions of quality are concerned, there is only one test that
is needed, in two parts, viz.:

1. Look at and handle and old cameras and lenses.
2. Look at and handle the new cameras and lenses.

It is a _quod erat demonstrandum_; the thing is evident on its face, as
the debaters would say.

>>>Mike includes the seven element Summicron to belong to that same
class<<<

I do admit that the newer lenses outperform the older, technically, and
I have no doubt that centering methods, QC standards, etc., have all
improved. However, as with my opinions on the R3 that I posted
yesterday, I suggest we must look at the historical context. When the
current 6-element Summicron-M 50mm was designed, it was during dark days
for Leitz: the M5 had failed in the markeptplace, Japanese SLRs were
overrunning the field, the German camera industry was in steep decline;
the M4 had been (or was about to be? I'm not certain of the exact
chronology off the top of my head) hastily brought back from the dead as
the M4-2, and rangefinder lens design had shifted mainly to Canada,
where the great genius Walther Mandler and his team were working. Now,
Dr. Mandler was possibly most interested in the incredible work he was
doing on the Noctilux and other, more nearly state-of-the art lenses;
but where is there any reason to suppose that for the basic,
introductory-level standard lens, economy was not a factor for Leitz at
the time as it was for every other camera manufacturer? And in fact, the
design Herr Mandler chose, with six elements and a pair of flat cemented
surfaces, happens to be supremely economical: of the twelve surfaces,
only eight are spherical; the need for coating is minimized; and it is a
particularly easy design to assemble. Difficult to get simpler than that
without going to the old Tessar / Elmar formula. In fact, this is the
very same cross-section that was, and is, used in a number of other
manufacturers' "budget" normals. It is the same cross-section used in
the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.8, for one.

You can buy a mint sample of the MC version of the Zuiko lens on eBay
for about $35, and it is a very fine lens, by my tests slightly
outperforming the Summicron at f/8 and "infinity" distances (i.e., 50X+
the FL). I grant you that the Leica version is a better lens overall,
being better-corrected for consistent performance across the aperture
range and at closer distances, and benefitting from better construction
quality and clearly higher QC. Of course a used Summicron costs 18 times
the price of the used Zuiko, which may or may not weigh in a comparison.

Now let's cut to the 7-element Summicron. For a time, I owned a c.1954
collapsible 50mm Summicron-M sold to me by Jim Lager at Tamarkin, which
Jim said that a wealthy collector had paid to have recoated. This was
the lens I used on the M4. Was it a "better" lens than the current
Summicron? Definitely, no--not technically. It was markedly inferior at
wider stops, it was markedly more susceptible to backlight and sidelight
flare. I suppose it was inferior at rendering ultra-fine detail
(although resolution of ultra-fine detail is unimportant to me, being
about 4/5ths the way down my list of the properties a fine lens should
offer).

But within its lights, it was a magical performer. At its preferred
stops and when unexcited by flare, it had a visual quality that can only
be described as aristocratic. The current Summicron (indeed, most other
lenses I have ever used) is pedestrian by comparison.

This assertion would seem to be borne out by better photographers than
I. The late Erich Hartmann, a longtime member and past President of
Magnum Photos, told me in private correspondence that since 1953, Henri
Cartier-Bresson has used whatever M camera body is the latest, up to and
including the M6--but that he has always preferred the original
collapsible-mount 7-element Summicron-M as his lens of choice. (And is
there much doubt that his would be multi-coated as well?) And we all
know what proportion of his work was done using a 50mm Summicron...THIS
model 50mm Summicron.

(Incidentally--please forgive the blatant plug, but I think you will
agree it is pertinent--if anyone cares to own a photograph taken with
this lens--presuming you cannot afford an original Cartier-Bresson
<g>--in the "Collector's Print Offer" in the next issue of _PHOTO
Techniques_ I'm going to be offering a sampling of four prints under the
rubric "35mm Optical Reference Standards"--examples of pictures made
with lenses I consider to be among the best that I have ever used for
the 35mm format. The picture "Mouth of the Chicago River, 1997," was
made with the recoated 7-element collapsible Summicron [and the M4]
under discussion here. Despite the name of the offer, the original
prints we offer usually illustrate some technical aspect of photography,
and we offer them not primarily as collector art but as photographers'
references, so they are extremely cheap--in this case, $60 for a
black-and-white 11x14 print. So, if you care to, you can see for
yourself if my claims for the "aristocratic quality" of this lens are
not true.)

Erwin continues: >>>The second approach might be notified as  "cost
cutting"
as less material is involved. But the new design is smarter and uses
more mathematics to get the same durability and longevity. So is cost
cutting in itself a bad act and does it lead by necessity to a lesser
product? Not at all!<<<

Of course, this is an ideal argument in favor of an Olympus Stylus Epic
being far superior to a Leica screwmount IIIf Red Dial. Laugh if you
will, but that is the argument's _reductio ad absurdum_.  <s>

In some ways it's undeniable that a Stylus is a better camera. Still, I
would say the Red Dial is more solidly crafted, uses nicer materials,
sports a more pleasing finish, and is likely to last longer.

And no, I'm not saying that parts efficiency, "just enough" quality,
less expensive materials where possible, and superior engineering are
bad things. Neither am I saying that current Leica lenses are "cheap" or
that the current M6 is a lousy camera. Far, far from it--Leica lenses
are generally about the best-made lenses you can buy, and the M6,
because it offers such an excellent meter that cannot be left on the
shelf at home, is the best Leica M ever made. It has a wonderful feel
and great quality. But at the summit of the contest for "best" tactile
and visual quality--the feel, the look, the sense of it--I just don't
think it can be argued that some of the older equipment was more
precise, better machined, more luxurious, and of better finish. Really,
as I said before, the current 50mm f/2.8 Elmar-M and an original 50mm
f/2.8 Elmar just clinch the point. Compare them side by side; it's
self-evident. Optically the Elmar-M is better, yes, but in terms of
build-quality it is just this side of shoddy by comparison.

Dan C.: >>>I have to say that the mechanical build of my 50 DR Summicron
is second to none [snip]<<<

Excellent case in point. Overbuilt? Perhaps, but so, so pleasingly so.

- --Mike