Re: R lenses

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 06:36 PM 9/28/97 +0200, you wrote:

Pascal, quite interesting information.

>Summilux-R 35/1.4: performance 3 stars (out of 5), price/quality ratio 2,
>cote d'amour 3
>Although there is no aspherical lens surface they spoke favoribly of this

This lens is an outstanding performer. I've owned two of them, and other
tests I've seen have said it's only outperformed by the 35 M 1.4 Aspheric.
Of course that was before the Summicron Aspheric made it's appearance. My
experience of using it for 10 years confirms it's outstanding. Better than
the 35 Summicron optically. But it's dang heavy, and has light falloff that
is noticeable with even lit backgrounds when wide open using chrome film.
Even so, it's an available light shooter's dream lens. 

>image are noticeably less sharper than the center. They only advise this
>lens for those who really need the maximum aperture of 1.4.

I would agree, but only because it's so big and heavy. Not because of
performance.

>Summicron-R 50/2.0: performance 4 stars, price/quality 2, cote d'amour 4
>This test once again proves that the Summicron is one of the best 50mm
>lenses and one of the references on the marketplace. Excellent performance,
>also at maximum aperture.

Funny, this lens is one of the older ones, and in some tests was considered
not as good as some of the competition. Did they update this one since the
mid-80s?

>Elmarit-R 90/2.8: performance 4 stars, price/quality 2, cote d'amour 3
>A superb lens and a real classic. Light, easy to hold and excellent quality.
>The most logical choice between Leica's 90mm lenses.

Yes, I agree completely, except for the speed being too slow.



=============
Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO

 Give me ambiguity or give me something else.