Re: [Leica] Summicron 35/2 wide open

["Dan Post" <dwpost@email.msn.com>]

Guys- (Oops, and Gals, too!)
Nothing wrong with the old Summicron 35! Quite respectable performer!
I even have the 35/3,5 Summaron LTM which I had heard was such a dog. Tried
it shooting the shadowed front of the store, almost directly at the sun,
with the sun just over the top of the store.... Sure- some localized flare
where the image of the sun came over the roof- just off frame. I was amazed
that the rest of the frame had decent contrast, and you could see detail in
the other parts of the shot.
What prompted me to try it was seeing a shot, similar in aspect, with the
sun to the front, taken by one of our sales people with a Nikon AF zoom....
The whole frame had been blown out by flare!
I am sure there is a great improvement in the new stuff, but the old stuff
performs in a lot of cases as well as your basic brand X of today, and that
ain't bad!
I think if you realize the limitations of the old stuff, and work with it,
trying to see how the masters did it, you can come up with some pretty
competent photos.... Unfortunately for me, Leica doesn't help with the
composition! I am pretty much hanging out there on my own, swinging in the
wind betimes!   :o)~
Dan
 >----
>Good point, Walt. I must say that after hanging out on the LUG for a while
>now, I'm left wondering how every legendary photographer over the age of 50
>who ever shot with a Leica managed to become a "legend" using such
inferior,
>crappy equipment. It's really astounding to think about what we were fooled
>into thinking was acceptable quality before the advent of the latest
>generation of lenses - how did HCB do it in 1938? How could Esie have
>possibly gotten the shots he did? And Larry Burrows? (Must have always been
>using Nikon! :-))Capa? Henri Huet? And those Jim Marshall shots we all
>thought were so spectacular? We must have been on acid! How could we
>possibly have thought those images were acceptable? Gene Smith? No wonder
he
>did so much manipulating in the darkroom - he must have been making up for
>the inferior lens quality...
>
>Yes, the latest lens are optically the best lenses. Yes, they will reduce
or
>eliminate flare under circumstances where earlier generations would not
>have. Yes, they can give you the ability to count the seam threads on a
pair
>of jeans at 20 yards.
>
>But you're right Walt..."most 'shooters' don't
>think about all this crap....they shoot, expecting the best,
>and usually get something OK.....if not, then they might
>worry about it....jeez.."
>
>And you know what, I'll be that when all is said and done, the "shooters"
on
>this list like Eric, Tina, Ted, Harrison, etc., feel the same way when
>they're out shooting and not at the keyboard...
>
>:-) B. D.
>