Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Dan, The Summilux cannot be 'older' than the Summarit as the Summilux was the replacement for the Summarit/1.5 and the look of both lenses is similiar. Steve Annapolis - ---------- >From: "Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com> >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Subject: Re: [Leica] nokton v. summilux >Date: Thu, Apr 13, 2000, 1:43 PM > > Tom ( I cut the long post) Finnegan- > I am currently using an older black Summilux 50- the one with the clamp on > shade, and 14163 cap on an M6, and a Summarit-M on an M4, and to be honest > with you- I cannot tell the difference in the two when looking at the > negatives or the scans. > I owe this to one of three things- one, either the CLA that Sherry did on > the Summarit brought it within specs of the older uncleaned Summilux- that > certainly doesn't look like it needs cleaning!. Two- I use HP5 or Delta 400, > and they just don't have the resolution to show the differences of these two > lenses. Three- My eyes are going, and noone has told me! > I shoot rarely wide open- but when I do, I am sure that my camera shake > would hide any difference! Stopped down- and I have used a resolution chart > for the f5,6 to f11 range on both lenses- and I couldn't tell any > significant difference, and that is the situation in which I find myself for > the most part- shooting at f5,6 to f8. I have noticed that the prices or the > Summarit has come down recently, and buying a user in decent condition, > having Sherry or someone do a good CLA on it, and you would have a Leica > lens, reasonably fast, and half the cost- at least- of a Summilux. > Dan ( My opinion only) Post >