Re: 35mm Summilux v Summicron M

[Bill Welch <Bill.Welch@Pressroom.com>]

There was an interesting article about the 35mm Summilux, 
non-ASPH, in the LHSA's Viewfinder, Third Quarter '96, that sang the 
praises of that lens. Basically the author concluded the Summilux was 
comparable to a late-model Summicron at f/2 and smaller, and that the 
admittedly poor quality f/1.4 should be regarded as a reserve, for use 
when getting any image is critical. He also pointed out some advantages, 
such as the compact size, ease of focusing, and the usefulness of the 
Series VII filter-holding lens hood. You can pop it onto a 50 Summicron, 
for instance, to provide an instant filter change.
	He said much of this lens' bad rap from bench testers is based on 
its curved field of focus. But he argues that in real-world shooting, a 
flat field isn't always the best thing to have, particularly with a 
moderate wide angle such as this.
 	I have a Summilux, vintage 222XXXX, and find it a marvelous lens 
for black and white. It is the lens I use most often with my Ms, by far, 
followed probably by the 21mm Super Angulon. But you must be careful to 
avoid flare shooting into bright light sources and backlit subjects. 
(As with the 21 too!) With chrome films those problems seem compounded. 
You can get some bright UFO-type reflections if you're not careful. But 
used wisely, I find it a great lens. 
	I don't have a 35 Summicron, so I can't attest to the comparison. 
	I'd be interested in hearing from those who can comment on the 
side-by-side comparison at f/2 and smaller.

Bill Welch
Arlington, VA