Re: [Leica] Dr. Strangelens, or....

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

My 50mm collapsible gave me bad images.  Then I looked through it and had it
CLA'd and what a difference.

When I went into Ms I purchased a 50mm collapsible and a 50mm DR.   Against
a lens chart, they both looked great.   In regular use, I like both.

I have a collapsible 90mm Elmar and a 90mm Elmarit.   On a lens chart, they
both test well after closing one or two stops.

Roland Smith
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Gandy" <Stephen@CameraQuest.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2000 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Dr. Strangelens, or....


>
>
> Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
> > "Barker, J. Madison" wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeez, Mark, I get the feeling the question is rhetorical, but since
you ask,
> > > no, that's not the answer.  How about these:
> > >
> > > Because those are the only 50mm lenses I have, and I thought it'd be
> > > interesting to see (but live and learn, eh?)?
> > >
> > > Because I'm an ignorant newbie who had no better sense than to buy
this
> > > "notoriously crappy" lens, foolishly relying on Stephen Gandy, who
says it
> > > "set new performance standards" (yes, I know, he's talking about _for
its
> > > time_), and the (LHSA-member) seller who said, "the finest ever made
in
> > > screwmount.  This is the Leica 7 element 50/2.0 Summicron (the same
lens
> > > formula is still made today, in bayonet mount), made with the highly
> > > refractive Lanthanum crown glass (making it slightly radioactive),
> > > permitting the highest performance ever, period.  According to Lager,
> > > 'noteworthy for extensive correction of all aberrations and reduction
of
> > > vignetting to a minimum; unusually high performance'"?  But thanks for
> > > setting me straight; I needed another weight on my trotline anyway,
and I
> > > suppose it'd be impossible to sell this lens at any price without
committing
> > > fraud, right LUG?;)
> >
> > A Bark from Mark!:
> >
> > All probably true.
> > Except that in it's collapsible version it wasn't any good. Bad
baffling?
> > And this is widely known, and I'm surprised Stephen would not know this.
> > Perhaps you read his thing wrong.
> > I got into Leica wanting to buy this lens as a first priority.
> > But was talked out of it widely from everyone and his mother!
> > I think NOW Leica should have a collapsible 50, 75 and 90.
> > Compactness is what the Leica system should maintain.
> > It's a shame they can't make a M system camera on the same scale as the
Barnack
> > (screw mount).
> > or bring back the CL.
> > I hate to rain on you parade if I had two 50's I'd compare them and I
don't'
> > even question the extreme casualty of you test parameters.
> > It's just it APPEARS stuff is happening which is not if people don't
know the
> > collapsible was a dog. What happened your contrast was low so you went
out an
> > got a Nokton?
> > Gee sure has more contrast than that stupid Leitz lens doesn't it!
> > I'd love to see the 50mm Summicron collapsible compared to a pre ASPH
35mm Summicron.
> > Or another more modern Leitz 50.
> > The best comparison in the context of this discussion of course would be
to
> > compare it to it's non collapsible version.
> > Mark Rabiner
>
> Mark,
>
> every standard Leica reference that I've ever read agrees that the 50/2
Collapsible
> Summicron was the sharpest 50/2 Leitz lens made up to that time, and some
say it was the
> best 50/2 of its time.  Of course, later versions were sharper, but this
was hardly junk.
>
> Have you ever shot the 50/2 Collapsible Summicron.   If I recall
correctly, a couple of
> articles in the Viewfinder also find it a great lens for its time.   I was
very surprised
> to read your opinion of the collapsible Summicron, I have talked to anyone
who shares it.
>
> might you have confused this lens with the 50/2 Summar, which does have a
terrible
> reputation for sharpness ? (though it has a beautiful soft focus if you
like that effect)
>
> have you shot a 50/2 Collapsible Summicron?  from your comments, its not
clear.
>
> lastly, Madison, is the lens clear when you shine a light thru it from
both directions ?
> if you see any haze or fogging at all with a light, it needs cleaning.
>
> Stephen Gandy
>
>