RE: [Leica] Build Quality of Lenses

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

The "look" is the optical inferiority of lenses of that era.:-) They have
more flare, more fall-off at the edges, etc. etc. Call it Leica glow, call
it Coke Bottle Bottom, the bottom line is that it isn't something lens
designers were trying to achieve, it is simply the best they could achieve
given the tools they had.

One may like the "glow," but it doesn't make a lot of sense to tout it as
"superior" to the images produced by modern lenses.

I note that having gone from the Pre-asph 21 to the ASPH 21 for the M, while
I was thrilled with the pre-asph when I used it, the results I get with the
ASPH are far superior, in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness, lack of flare,
and lack of light fall off...

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jim Shulman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:20 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Build Quality of Lenses
>
>
> I agree with Steve.  Perhaps years of self-abuse have finally ruined my
> ability to discern resolution differences in Leitz optics.  However, I
> recently began shooting with an immediate postwar (coated) Elmar
> 50 3.5 and
> have been astonished by the results.  These a gorgeous look to
> pictures with
> this lens that my collapsible Summicron and mid-80s Summilux 50s
> don't have.
> However, these other lenses also create their own particular look to the
> photographs, which is not unpleasant in their own right.
>
> Jim Shulman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve LeHuray <icommag@toad.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 11:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Build Quality of Lenses
>
>
> > >
> > > Okay, I've now spent a couple of days with a DR Summicron (thanks to
> > > Ting!), and I have a few thoughts.  While I've never been impressed by
> the
> > > argument that holds the M3, M2 and M4 to be superior
> mechanically to the
> > > later bodies -- I've worked with both types, and my M4-P is just as
> nice,
> > > in every way -- I am now utterly convinced of the the superior build
> > > quality of the early lenses.  Later, horrendously expensive Leica
> lenses,
> > > though reasonably well-constructed, feel about as solid as my old
> Zuikos,
> > > and less solid than the fully metal lenses for the Contax
> SLR.  Frankly,
> > > the new black Voigtlanders feel better (although I'm less
> happy with the
> > > finish on the chrome versions).
> > >
> > > This DR Summicron, on the other hand, is about as well made as
> > > anything I've ever held in my hands.  It's a joy.  I'm
> determined, now,
> to
> > > buy only the earlier lenses, unless the optical performance of the
> > > recent versions are vastly superior.  Call it a fetish thing.
> > >
> > > So.  I'm still searching for that perfect 35mm lens.  How is that old
> > > chrome Summicron, relative to the fourth generation?  And
> what about the
> > > 35/2.8 Summaron?
> > >
> > >
> > > Doug Cooper
> > >
> > > (oh, and thanks for the response re:  my IIIc.)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Sure! I have first generation M chrome lenses and current generation and
> > there is no question IMHO that the first generation chrome lenses feel
> > better but I cannot say which is the better quality as they were built
> with
> > different materials and standards. I know that Irwin will disagree but I
> do
> > have trouble telling which picture was shot with which lens. I have shot
> the
> > same scene at the same time first with a Summicron collapsible
> (1953) then
> > switched to a current Summicron, then had prints (8x10) made, just about
> > impossible to tell which is which. Going a little further I took a
> portrait
> > with a Summitar 50 (1950) on a 111G and the same shot with current
> Summicron
> > on a M2 and maybe I need my eyes checked but could not see any
> difference.
> > No doubt under scientific conditions there is a big difference
> but in the
> > real world, I am not so sure.
> > Steve
> > Annapolis
> >
>
>