[Leica] Re: Old vs. new lenses. (Was 75mm frame lines)

["Joe Stephenson" <joeleica@flash.net>]

I can respond indirectly to the general question regarding the differences
between old and new lensess. Yesterday I madesome protraits using two 50mm
lenses. One was a one-year-old Summicron; the other was a forty-year-old
Summarit f1.5. All exposures were made with the same lighting setup, the
same subject, and using the same film developed at the same time in the same
tank. (APX100 developed in Rodinal per Agfa's data sheets). Ths Summicron
negatives printed (8X10) w/a #2 filter beautifully at f8.0 for 10 secends.
The Summarit negatives required #3 filtration and about 120% (f5.6, 12
seconds) more exposure in the enlarger. Even then the resulting prints were
low in contrast. Fine detail was not rendered as well, and there was a
general lack of acutance and punch in the prints. The difference between the
two negatives can be seen from five feet on a contact sheet. The Summarit
negs have a lot of flare, and reduced contrast all around. The model asked
for a lens that was less sharp because of wrinkle-dread, hence the trial of
the older lens. However, she preferred the Summicron prints. They looked
better to her. Me too. I did what I could to produce good skin rendering and
to avoid overly dramatic presentation of wrinkles and blemishes. I should
add that the Summarit was cleaned and serviced less that two years ago and
gets little use.
Sincerely,
Joe Stephenson

>Joe,
>
>
>> I'm not trying to be controversial; I have really been wondering about
>> whether the newer lenses have anything to offer me that would make a
>> difference to my pictures, fast film handheld. Seeking enlightenment.
>
>I upgraded my 35mm Summicron from the 70s to the latest ASPH version
>this fall. Before doing it, I had the opportunity to borrow one and to run
>some of my own tests. My conclusion was that at f2 there was a visible
>difference in the slides, and a smaller but still visible difference at
f2.8.
>From
>f4 on, there was no difference that I could see on the light table. These
>tests
>were of course done on a tripod, Fuji Velvia, close-ups of a statue. Maybe
>they are not relevant to handheld shooting, but I did upgrade nonetheless;
>I shoot at maximum aperture quite often and was willing to pay to squeeze
>this little extra quality. If you always shoot at f5.6 or smaller
apertures,
>then
>you will be wasting your money.
>
>Nathan
>