Re: Re[2]: [Leica] S'cron performance

[thibault collin <tc-lnc@u-picardie.fr>]

At 09:51 21/01/1998 +0100, you wrote:
>
>>In any case, given that lots of people on this list report
>>experiences different than yours with the 50/2 Summicron, does it
>>seem possible to you that your particular example of this lens may
>>not be typical?  Perhaps it needs an internal cleaning and should be
>>collimated to your camera.  I ask purely as a matter of curiosity --
>>it doesn't really matter much to me if a 50/2 Summicron is less sharp
>>than a 50/1.8 Nikkor; this just seems to run counter to most of what
>>I had heard in the past.
>>
>>-Patrick
>
>Hello Patrick,
>
>I may be a loner in this one, but I have reported at length about the
>relative weak performance of the Summicron ('54-'69) at large apertures. It
>is indeed a fact that this lens, while in its days unsurpassed, has been
>superceded qualitatively not only by its newer successors, but also by a
>number of high class Japanese lenses from the late sixties, early
>seventies, the famous Nikkor-H 2/50 being one example.
>The Summicron (first gen) still has its loyal followers, and the
>performance is even today goog, at smaller apertures even very good. It is
>however wrong to assume that every lens Leitx made at any time is the best
>now and stays so in the future, irrespective of progress and competition.
>A very famous Leica reviewer once analysed the Summilux 1,4/50 and
>concluded that he had found no better performance for its specification
>than with the Summilux. This is a very subtle and polite way to tell that
>some of the competition is at least as good.
>I am a great admirer of Leica glass and its design philosophy and the image
>quality this gives. I cannot and need not say that Leica was and is
>unsurpassable in all optical disciplines.
>The Leica lenses are in my opinion at this moment unsurpassed and therefore
>outstanding for their balance of optical characteristics which produce
>extremely  fine detailed images that sparkle like clear water in the
>morning sun.
>Leica at the moment produces more than 50, 60 lenses in all focal lengths
>and apertures. And in its long history the firm has produced more than a
>hundred designs. Is it conveivable that every single one can beat all
>competition on all accounts?
>Hardly I would say.
>Erwin
>
>
>
Patrick and Erwin,

I did not know that the old Nikkor-H 50mm f/2 could compete with the s'cron
but at least what I am sure about is that if you compare a 1960s lens with a
1990s the second will be the best even if it's a leitz vs a jap! It's just a
matter of technology. I thank Erwin to agree with me that the old s'crons
were unsurpassed in their days but cannot be considered as prime lenses
nowadays. Of course, if I buy a new s'cron, I guess this latter would be
sharper that the nikkor I'm using. It would not be surprising since their
technique has evolved as the jap's! It's just a matter of time! By the way,
I remember using an old nikkor 55mm f/1.2 which was a true dog (very low
contrast, vignetting) and loving it because of this!!!
Concerning the bodies, somebody said that the N8008s won't last forever as
an M2 is supposed to. That's true, but I you take appart the clumsy photomic
of an F or an F2 and replace it with a simple pentaprism, these are at least
as resistent as the Ms...and you can use the AF lens with 'em! (you could
say the same about the old Cannon F1 except the exposure meter...). The only
point is the mechanical support that vanished for Nikons but there are no
real problems apart from the photomics...
The evident link between the Rs and minoltas always tore me apart from them
except from the R8 which seems to be really great but not as untemporal as
the Ms...The best should be the leicaflex.
Thib.