[Leica] Erwin's Summilux write-up

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

On 6/24/04 12:21 PM, "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Come on, Henning - I would think that when reviewing a new ASPH
> Summilux, whatever the focal length, one would provide some comparison
> with other Summilux lenses - particularly because the 35 ASPH is so
> staggeringly good, as is the older 75. Great, the new 50 is better than
> the old 50 Summilux. Big whoop. So, arguably, is the 50 Nokton for $2K
> less. The question really is, is the new lens worth an investment of
> $2.5K - does it produce images that compare to the Summilux lenses on
> either side of it in the line-up. I think the answer's pretty obvious.
> Because if the answer is "yes," you can bet that would have been
> included in the review.
> 
> As to the difference in focal lengths - 35 is standard for me. I can get
> closer with it than with the 50, I can crop in to get a 50-like image if
> I want to; I get a bit more depth of field at 1.4 but can still isolate
> subjects; and I can get more air, or more subjects into the frame,
> without stepping back. But I realize we all have different preferences
> and needs. :-)
> 
> B.D.

A Summilux lens is a 1.4 lens. And from what I know about optics making one
focal length lens a 1.4 is a far far different story from making another
focal length lens a 1.4 lens. For some it's like what happens when you go
from 1.4 to f1 in a 50. All hell breaks loose.

Just because a lens has the "name" in this case Summilux does not to me
invite comparisons across the focal length board.
Perhaps it was a bad idea to give those names to definite f stops which is a
fairly recent thing. Keep them "mystical" like Kodak does and use them
randomly from product line to product line.
After all we know that "Summilux" was the Leitz family gerbil while the
"Summicron" their dog ate the gerbil during Oktoberfest.





Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/