Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:37 AM 11/13/97 -0500, you wrote: >Eric Welch, >Granted, I've not had a chance to compare both; however, the MSG from >Lucien might suggest a similar conclusion, "After trying both I made the >opposite choice". Tom, Now when in the world would I EVER flame you? I'm hurt. <g> Everyone I know who has actually used both will tell you the Summilux is better. It just has some special qualities that are hard to define without looking at the pictures. I've seen pictures taken by a friend of mine (who is good - he's had several pictures published in National Geographic) with the Summicron. They are wonderful, and I'd say the special characteristic of this lens is freedom from flare, and minimal vignetting wide open. But at 1.4 it's not so good. Jim Stanfield, of National Geographic fame, who is probably the most technically astute photographer they use (he's retired, but still shooting) told me that he thought the Summilux was the best 35 he's used, but he doesn't like that focal length that much. He much prefers 24 and 180. Anything in between isn't to his taste. So I guess it's a matter of picking the lens that fits the budget and shooting style. That's the bottom line if you ask me. If you need 1.4, then there's no choice. Compact and light? The Summicron is the choice. That's what's great about Leica. You can pick between models for other reasons than raw optical performance, because all Leica lenses are good. Some just gooder than others. :-) Of course, this is just my humble (I wish) opinion. ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance.