Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:01 AM 9/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >About the R-100 APO, Eric Welch wrote: >It's a truly awesome lens, as is the 35 >>Summilux. > >That made me curious about the 35/1.4 R. I have the 35/1.4 M, which is not >half as bad as some people will tell you, and I love it for its compactness >and classic looks. But to be honest, it's not fantastic below f/5.6. > >So: How will the Summilux-R compare to the 35/1.4 ASPH for M? I think the ====clip==== >Is the 35/1.4-R really worth it in terms of weight and price? I suppose it's >better than the Summicron-R, but the latest Elmarit is hard to beat - it's >slow, but quite excellent. The 35 Elmarit is supposed to be about the same as the Summicron from what I've read. I haven't seen many pictures taken with that lens. I'm sure it's fine. But, the R Summilux 35 is amazing. It's got it's faults. It's big, it's heavy, takes 67mm filters, and it vignette's a tad wide open against even surfaces (what lens of this kind doesn't?). Yet, I would own it again in a second if I ever got seriously into the R system again. It's that good. Tests I've seen show the only two wide angles in the whole Leica system (R and M) that are better are the R 19/2.8 (new) and the 35 ASPH M. And the difference between the ASPH and the R are really insignificant. It's that good. I never hesitate to recommend it, if the weight and size can be born. Those are the only significant down sides to the lens. No other 35 comes close (including the 35 Summicron M) except the ASPH. Yet, we have to choose on many issues. The primary characteristic the 35 Summicron R has over most other lenses is being free from flare. It's tops in that area. But the Summilux has more character and amazing contrast. Simply amazing.....I could go on, but you get the point. >To my mind, the 35 Summilux and the 100 APO will make a minimalist (but >heavy) setup that will cover almost everything. I don't like to be without Sounds like a fantastic combination, if the fill your needs for subject matter. I was in Yosemite for three days this week, and did I ever wish I had the 100 apo macro! >From: "Hubert Nowotny" <hubertn@mail.ctr.co.at> >I had the same problems either when a friend introduced the 21 mm M >lens to me. I've spent months and years since then, sometimes >thinking about id ... and I feel that I really could get accustomed >to the thought ... You're probably right. Seems like most people don't have a problem with the 21, but I wonder. Just saw the Contax G2 and it's new biogon 21mm 2.8 is tempting, but that camera with longer lenses is terrible (viewfinder.) >From: Tay Shyan <shyan@po.pacific.net.sg> >>Question: How many in this group use either a CL or M5 regularly. I'd like >>to get a 'feel' considering these 2 cameras are somewhat less than well >>thought of by many Leicaphiles. Please indicate which 1 you use and maybe >>accessories. I used the M5 some. It was a loaner at the journalism school I attended. (That it works is testimony that it's quite rugged! None of the Canon stuff held up well in students' hands). I liked it, fits my big hands fine. But I prefer the M6. =========== Eric Welch Grants Pass, OR