Re: [Leica] Summilux 50 bo-ke?

[CapsTeeth@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/3/00 5:37:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
terpat@magix.com.sg writes:

<< I'm not entirely sure CapsTeeth's comments on the 50'lux were based on a
 1980's vintage lens. I don't have online pics published, but having used 3
 different vintages of the 50'lux I find his comments sound like he has an
 early lens, ser. no earlier than 1844000 which were very soft at the widest
 apertures. Leica changed the optical formula after that and the second
 version, which was produced up to 1995 I think, was much less 'flare-y' at
 wide apertures. This second version performs very well indeed at f2, >>

The lens I had was a black E-43 model vintage 1989, as I got it along with my 
first M6 body which I still have.  I was disappointed from the get-go with 
the performance at f/2.8 and f/2 even in comparison with the 11817 Summicron 
(from 1969) that I had been using with my M4.  When I bought my 75 Summilux 
(lens lust at its worst, considering how little I've used that gem), I 
stopped using the 50 Summilux so last year I sold it for a new Summicron.   
But I had both 50's for a few months and I'll have to stand by my original 
statement that the latest Summicron is clearly ahead of the Summilux at f/2.8 
and f/2.  The Summicron is better at f/2 on E200 than the Summilux was at 1.4 
on E100.  This is true at infinity and gets more obvious the closer you 
focus.  As to the "bokeh", well, I'll make a statement that's sure to get me 
flamed, but I think sometimes people fall back on that un-quantifiable term 
to defend lenses that have mediocre sharpness.  To me it's unimportant what 
the out-of-focus part looks like if the in-focus part isn't sharp.