Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>How come you left out al of my lenses? Or did I just not see them? Of course, >being poor I have all the lenses nobody else wants -- a 3.5 Elmar, a 21mm F4 >-- but that doesn't make them bad. Sorry, Charlie. I don't know the 3.5 Elmar, but Noel (Noel, please, allow to me to publish your notable lines) said to me in a private mail, <<<I have the Elmar collapsible 3.5/50, and the Summar 2/50, and I have noticed a difference ...I would be interested to read your impressions of the Elmar as well. I find it to be crisper than the Summar, almost like the difference between a television picture (Summar) and a movie film (Elmar) >>> Different, I have mentioned the 4/21 SA in my descritption. It performs like the 3.4/21 SA in my experience (but less sharp at lower f-stops), and it is a great lens at my favorite 21 mm f-stop, f 8. Besides, you pay DM 2.000.-- (about USD 1.100, without viewer) for this lens in Germany, and you only see her once in 2 yeasr ... Unfortunately-1, I cannot confirm your description of the inside blackening anymore, since I got the lens from my newspaper as professional gear (25+ years ago) and returned it after departure. Different, I agree to your description and your friend's experiences of the old lenses' performance. Me, as many other LUGs, prefer those old lenses with their intended in-perfectness (?, word), because they just do what I see/ perceive when I look at a person, landscape, or another fascinating subject. Unfortunately-2, Leitz and Solms do not follow that line anymore since the 50ies, as Marc J Small indicated. As in other industries, they are immitating Japaneese or US developments and improvements (that's my comment :) ). Alf - -------------------------------------------------- Alfred Breull http://members.aol.com/abreull/index.htm http://members.aol.com/mfformat/c-mf.htm