Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/28

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Using the R8 & 50 Summicron
From: John Gong <jgong@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:52:13 -0700

Mark,

Unless you've used one of these lenses, your criticism is theoretical and unproven.  My experiences with the zoom parallel NS's.  It's a heck of a lens.  Just not too sharp at f2 and f2.8  :-). This zoom and the 100 apo are the ONLY reasons I maintain an R system.  Not the 50 summicron.  It's a great lens, but not from any practical standpoint better than my Contax 50 f1.4 or even my Nikkor AI f1.4 .  But neither of these systems has a 35-70 zoom as good as Leica's.


John

At 12:43 AM 10/27/1999 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>"N.S. Ng" wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I have been using this lens for about 11/2 years, I purchased this because I
>> like to have a short range zoom and on occassions when I want to travel
>> light. Many of my shots were taken at f4. My other zoom is a 70-210
>> Angeniuex. I have the 50 Summicron R as well.
>> 
>> The 35-70 f4, is a fine performer. At its widest aperture, f4, its
>> performance is better than the 50 Summicron at f4. It seems to be sharper,
>> probably due to its higher contrast. I have also compared the performance at
>> 35mm. end to my 35 mm. Summicron-M ( non- aspherical) at f.4 and I could not
>> see any difference. I have not compared this to my 35mm. Summilux-Asph. At
>><Snip> 
>
>IF the  35-70 f4,zoom is sharper at f4 than the 50 Summicron is more then 
>just a
>"fine performer".  The 50 Summicron has been lens all other 50mm lenses have
>been compared against for decades (but not usually zooms) and defines "Leica"
>and I won't go on and on.
>That zoom would be on the cover of Time: the man of the year would be a 
>lens...a
>technological object. Like the Prozac pill.
>Comparing the results of a premium quality if not legendary fixed lens to a 
>zoom
>at all is a little unlogical in my opinion but saying the zoom is better is
>downright delusional. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where you 
>could
>get a zoom sharper than a 50 Summicron?! I'll dream about that tonight! 
>Zoom technology has come far hasn't it? NOT THAT FAR! In the morning I'll be
>waking up to the real world again.
>What the zoom does better is zoom. Everything else is a trade-off. 
>Especially in
>anything resembling a flair/backlit situation. Too many elements! Too much 
>wizbang!
>Mark Rabiner
>