Re: [Leica] Leitz vs. Voigtländer

[Gaifana@aol.com]

I'm sure it will start a flame war somehow, but these are the realistic 
alternatives to the Summaron and the current Summicron.  If you went to a 
Summicron (or really, anything on this list), you probably would never use a 
Summaron again.  The Summaron was an early wideangle, and in the days when it 
came out, Leica had not emphasized wideangles at all (the exception being the 
3.5cm Elmar), and it was an arena with only Contax as a big player (the 
Biogon was the first really useful wideangle).  

Current Summicrons are harsh.   I guess it depends on what you like.  My 
favorites, in order of decreasing price and performance (but bear in mind, 
the difference between the top  and bottom is not what you would expect by 
the prices - the Russian one makes negatives almost indistinguishable from 
the Hexars and Canons).

Leitz Midland 35/2 Summicron (~700)
- -planar type 7/6 construction, 39.0 filter
- -nice, pleasant bokeh

Konica Hexar RF black (~450)
- -planar type 7/6 construction, 46.0 filter
- -direct duplicate of the midland summicron
- -optimized for bokeh
- -to be released this summer as 35/2 Hexanon-M

Canon 35/2 screwmount black (~400) (to 1972)
- -planar type 7/4 construction, 40.0 filter
- -extremely sharp lens, high contrast, harsh bokeh
- -sharper than a 35/2.8 Contax Zeiss Distagon SLR lens
- -getting tough to find
- -competitive with any lens of its day

Russian 35/2.8 Jupiter-12 (~100)
- -biogon-type construction, 40.5 filter
- -the bargain choice -- very competitive with top-flight lenses
- -rear element protrudes into body quite a bit - not for Canon RF.
Canon 35/1.8 screwmount chrome (~275)
- -planar type 7/4 construction, 40.0 filter
- -decent performance and fast

In a message dated 5/25/00 9:55:27 AM, k.miska@french-rogers.com writes:

<< Fellow LUGers,

Recently I contemplated replacing my 1950s 35/3.5 Summaron with a

pre-owned 35/2 Summicron for my M2. Even used 35/2 Summicrons come with

hefty price tags; around $1,000 to $1,100 at Tamarkin. So, one thought

was to investigate the Voigtländer 35/1.7 Ultron. A LUGer alerted me to

Erwin Puts’ test report on the Voigtländer lenses. I printed out the

report and read it several times. Very interesting indeed.


Now, I suppose questioning the omnipotent Mr. Puts amounts to sacrilege.

I am quite certain that I will be hunted down mercilessly, tried before

a kangaroo court and summarily dispatched to the hereafter.


Anyway, here’s my beef. Mr. Puts is comparing apples and oranges when he

compares the Leitz 35/2 with the Voigtländer 35/1.7. Obviously, there is

going to be a difference in performance but will the casual eye detect

this difference in performance? Is it that obvious? I don’t know. The

price difference is, of course, staggering. A new 35/2 Summicron (black)

runs $2445 vs. $479 for a new Ultron. That’s over five times as much,

based on Tamarkin’s website.


It’s approximately like comparing a Ferrari with a Miata. A Ferrari at

$200,000 is obviously going to perform one hell of a lot better than the

$20,000 Miata. You can’t compare ‘em.


Also, what are Mr. Puts qualifications? Is he an optical engineer? Does

he have the proper optical test equipment? What it all comes down to is

that the best test equipment is probably the human eye. At the price of

the Leitz lens, it damn well perform five times better than the modest

Ultron.


What am I going to do? I will continue to enjoy my 1950s 35/3.5 and hope

that someday a 35/2 will come along at a fair price. That way my 50/2

and 90/2 from Leitz won’t feel so lonely.


Kurt