Re: [Leica] OT--Newbie Want-to-be-owner of Leica

[Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>]

One thing that a friend and I discovered in testing a bunch of older lenses (and this is topical to buying a "Jurassic" Leica Summicron, is that the 1950s Summicrons aren't necessarily that great - though it may vary from example to example.  The newer ones, though are incredible lenses.

When looking at the 20x30 sections, at f/5.6 and 8 on a nice sunny day, there is very little difference between a rigid Summicron (chrome, 1950s,) a Canon 50/1.5 (coated, chrome, early 1950s), and a Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5 (1936, no coatings whatsoever - a surprisingly contrasty lens).  Perhaps the most shocking thing about all of this is that a 1970s Helios 53/1.8 (Contax mount, adapted onto an M3) was the best of all of them - and it is a lens that people scoff at.  And the difference in contrast and sharpness was not slight.

Of course, your ability to tell the difference between a cheap SLR lens and an expensive RF lens comes down to your ability to back up the camera optical system with an enlarger that is perfectly aligned and keeps negs perfectly flat - and that can cost as much as the camera - we are now talking Focamat, Durst M700 series, and other things with 1-piece cast chasses and glass carriers.  I have found that even cheapo enlarging lenses (like the Durst Neonon - Rodagon?) produce tack-sharp prints when you can keep the negatives flat.

So my strategy would be to buy the cheapest lens that has performance such that you would never be able to tell the difference between it and the best lens, and spend the rest on upgrades to the rest of your system.  If you look at Photodo's actual MTF measurements, the differences between the lastest 50/2 Summicron (which we'll say is the best lens) and the 50/2 Hexanon are close to nil, and if you are looking at the 10 lp/mm figure, which determines a acutance and perceived sharpness (0.93 vs 0.92), we are talking about 1% transmission, which is small enough to be insignificant (and certainly within the "error range" of most b/w processing regimes).  The 20 and 40 lp/mm figures are similarly close (0.84 vs 0.83, 0.67 vs 0.65).  Photodo's average weighted MTF is identical for both lenses (0.86).

[As an aside, has anyone seen the Viewfinder article on the 50/2 Hexanon?  I understand Erwin wrote one on it.]

Save the excess $$$ for that 35/2 pre-ASPH Summicron, which is the one lens no one has ever come close to!

On Friday, October 13, 2000, at 10:48 AM, Dennis Painter wrote:

Kim, 

I second Jeff's thoughts, and this approach gets you out shooting faster
since you aren't saving up for so long. Keep in mind that when you want
a different lens the Hexar can be resold for not much less than you
paid. Think of any difference as "rent" ;)

Bests,
Dennis

Jeff S wrote:
> 
> Kim, if you can get a nice M6 for $1250 or less, I'd say that's the way
> to go. Add to that a 50/2 Hexar lens (~$300 or so) and you are set with
> an essentially modern package with the latest lens coatings.
> Alternately, consider the complete Konica Hexar RF packages which are
> regularly offered on eBay.
> 
> I like older Leica cameras too, but when all is said and done, I'm not
> convinced that they're always the best, most rational buys out there.
> Older cameras may need a good deal of refurbishing and this can be
> expensive, but some of us do it anyway, not because it makes great
> economic sense, but because we like the camera.
> 
> Jeff Segawa
> NO ARCHIVE
> 
> Teresa299@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Any suggestions folks have for favourite bodies and lenses are most welcome.
> > Other considerations I should take into account are welcome too.