Re: [Leica] 50 mm M lens comparisons (long)

[Alfred Breull <puma@hannover.sgh-net.de>]

So, so. 

And how got Leitz that reputation before they built the latest 
M Summicron in 1980 ?

Certainly not because of the great loading system of it's screw
mount bodies [speciallly, if you keep in mind, that the pre-war 
1.5/50 Sonnar was an excellent lens, and the Contax had a great 
reputation also].

But, let's not speak of HCB's or Robert Capa's "low contrast, 
fuzzy photos with lots of abberations murking about" - let's 
switch the decades:

Sam Haskins, Will McBride, Jean-Loupe Sieff, Paul Fusco, etc. - all 
took Leica pictures in the 60ies and 70ies. I do not think, that their 
pictures are "low contrast, fuzzy photos with lots of abberations 
murking about".

So, I don't understand what you are talking about.

But I admit, that I'm happy for/on (?) each sold lens of today. 
Since the profit comes out of the lenses, not the bodies. Each sold 
lens keeps a company going, which gives a lot of pleasure to all of 
us each day. 

Or do you suggest, that their workers are non-competitives also - when 
you take the selling rates into account which continue to be dramatically 
low ?

Alf


- -----------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:39 25.01.1998 EST, you wrote:
><< So, although more sharp, the current Summicron has lost parts of its
> abilities. >>
>
>Yes, but the question is whether one wants these abilities that have been
>lost.  To me these abilities are the abilities to produce low contrast, fuzzy
>photos with lots of abberations murking about.  I usually don't want these,
>but sometimes they are quite splendid.  
>
>The point, however, is that if Leica could have produced well corrected, high
>resolution, high contrast lenses in the past, they would have.  The softness
>of the old lenses was not intended - they just could not do any better
>technically.
>
>Tom Shea
>
>
>