Re: [Leica] 35mm Summicron, version differences

[Jesse Hellman <palio@miata.net>]

It's unfortunate when the discussions get too heated. One person makes a
point, and someone picks up one element of it and spins it in a
direction different from what was intended, and then comes another
retort. All of the LUGgers have written things that are worth hearing
when understood in context and with empathy.

My own experience, as one who loves his Leica equipment dearly, and who
sold all of his Nikon gear (two F2 photomics and a slew of lenses): I
cannot tell the quality differences in the pictures, although tests I
made clearly showed my 50mm Summilux superior to the Nikkor, Pop Photo
not withstanding. I am quite proud of some of the early Nikon pictures
and still feel surprised I made them, but there is one major difference:
when I changed to the Leica the fact that I could see beyond the frames,
the very quick reaction time of the quiet shutter, and the small
unobtrusive nature of the camera itself, led to an increase in pictures
that have a spontaneous, slice-of-life look, that I prefer.

With the Leica I have done some carefully set up shots, with a tripod,
using the 90 and135 Elmarits, but the strength of the camera for me is
the type of photograph Jim Megargee has on his website.

I am not pretending that for me the camera is just a tool. It is a work
of art, too, and one that is not so easy to obtain. I love it for many
reasons. But more of the great photographs ever made were made with
cameras other than Leicas...

Jesse Hellman