Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Marc James Small wrote: > I will be the iconoclast, and I will stick with the Summitar. I love > that > lens, And Don Dory wrote: > The Sumitar is about as good as the first generation Summicron with the > Summicron having a flatter field. You will find that the older > Summicron > that you have is the first version where they were trying to take > dollars > out of the lens and therefore it really is only modestly better than > the > Summitar and that would be from the better coatings. Well, I've always liked my Summitar, even though I have always also wished for a DR Summicron. But given theses comments, perhaps I'll stop worrying about close focusing, and just be happy with what I have. It came, in M-adaptor, with my single-stroke M3, purchased in 1972 for only $125. Of course, the shutter turned out to have a pinhole, requiring fairly expensive repairs, but I've never regretted the purchase. With a 35mm Summaron RF and a 90mm Tele-Elmerit it's still my favorite camera. I'm wondering about the coating, though. A couple of years later, living in Houston's humidity, I noticed fungus on one of the Summitar's internal elements. My memory is that at the time recoating by Leitz was about $60, and that a local camera store had a similar lens for about the same price. Rather than take a chance on a lens someone else was getting rid of, I had mine recoated. So, I wonder, if the quality difference between a Summitar and an early Summicron is mainly the coatings, does my mid-70s coating lessen the difference? --Eric