Re: [Leica] 11817

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Marc James Small wrote:
> 
> At 08:27 AM 7/5/99 -0400, David W Almy wrote:
> >
> >
> >Second, the Viewfinder just published a fascinating article which
> >alleges that the 50 Summicron version produced from 69-79 is in fact the
> >definitive performing 50 Summicron, owing to its cost-no-object design,
> >later abandoned for the current simpler/cheaper-to-manufacture design.
> >Stephen Gandy (cameraquest) had one up for sale on Ebay before the
> >article came out, it didn't reach his reserve, so I asked what he
> >wanted, and he's now keeping the lens. So what's the deal? Can anyone
> >comment on the performance of 11817?
> 
> Well, the article in VIEWFINDER isn't terribly accurate in that it relies
> upon supposition and guesswork.  I seriously doubt that Leitz ever designed
> lenses with a "cost is no object" philosophy, as the company has never been
> especially flush with money, though the current approach is closer to this
> than at any time in the past.  In any event, Leitz was closer to bankruptcy
> in the late 1960's than at any other time, and, hence, would be less likely
> to follow this attitude then than earlier or later -- they just lacked the
> funds to build a lens such as the author describes.
> 
> The lens is a real disappointment in use.  I have owned three and have sold
> all of them, cheerfully.  It is a clumsy lens to use, especially on an M3,
> where the lens continues to travel past its minimum focusing of 1m.  The
> optical performance is slightly better than the rigid/DR first-generation
> lens but not sufficiently to cause me to want to keep it over the
> convenience of a DR.
> 
> Marc
An infuriatingly presumptuous "article" in the Viewfinder.  
It would have been more appropriate in my opinion to have it be letter
to the editor than an article, a minor reason being the total lack of
photo's of the lenses, just two diagrams.
Not surprizing as it was stated by Roy last month to us that articles
are being treated as letters; not checked for accuracy; a policiy I have
mixed feelings about.  It's just shocking to see such leaps of logic on
the printed page. Makes Pop Photog seem like a scientific journal.
That said I'll contradict myself totally by saying that this particular
Viewfinder is much better put together than previous issues. It appears
a whole new level of concentrated effort has been made. And best cover yet.
The subject of the versions of the 50 Summicron was the first reason I
ever contacted Erwin way before I joined the lug. He assured me my lens
was second to none, an endearing statement. And based in reality.
Mark Rabiner