Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/04/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Erwin, > >Would you call the Summarit a good portrait lens? Jonathan Eastland refers >to this lens as the little gem. Is he right? > >Best regards, > >Chris > Chris, There are a number of statements in Mr. Eastlands books I could not support, nor would I dare to make them. I think it quite remarkable that so many people classify a lens with a weak optical performance as a good portrait lens. As if people pictures must be soft or in other ways defective. The argument is quite often that people (mostly older ones) do not like their skin or wrinkles exposed. And a soft lens would disguise these. Well if we take the portraits by Mapplethorpe, Newton or Avedon as a reference you would see great clearity of detail and a suberb definition, partly because of these photographers using medium format cameras (Hasselblads for instance). By the way the preferred optic of many 'blad portrait users is the Planar 3,5/100mm, one of the sharpest in the line. For us poor 35mm users, to even approach this quality we certainly need the best lenses available. And as Leica users we are well served. The Summarit a good portrait lens? Not at all! If you need a contemporary portrait lens try the Summilux 1.4/75mm at f/2,8. Or if you would stick with 50mm optics, the Summicron or if you can afford it the Noctilux would be my first choice. The Noctilux in particular gives you a very subtle differentiation in the highlight areas, which in most portraits are easily washed out. Greetings Erwin Puts