Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jeff... I, too, have gone through the agony of lens purchasing as a Leica beginner these past many months. On Christmas day three years ago, my father-in-law gave me his old non-functioning Leica kits as a gift; I had the M3 and three lenses [Summaron 35, collapsible Summicron 50, Hektor 135] CLA'd at high expense within 5 months, after selling off all my other hobbies to fund the repairs. While the M3 was in the shop, I was lucky enough to purchase an early Noctilux f/1.0 at a somewhat reasonable price, through the LHSA. The IIIf was fixed at affordable expense within 11 months and the screwmount Xenon 50 within a few months after that, again at high expense. In retrospect, it would have been cheaper to buy new or newer-used gear, but these were family heirlooms, so they were given tender loving care. As more funds slowly became available, I picked up some of the inexpensive Voigtländer offerings [21, 25, 28, 35, 50]. More recently I purchased used Leica 90 and 135 lenses [about the same price as new Voigtländer gear], and a new Leica screwmount Summicron 50 [about the same price as a new M mount]. I mention all of this because I have now had 1930's, 50s, 70's, 80's, and 90's era Leica glass, as well as current Voigtländer lenses to compare together. When I first started using the 50's era Leica glass after it was CLA'd, I was amazed that it appeared to produce images as good as much of the current glass on the market. Then I started making critical comparisons of the old glass with stopped-down long exposure images from the Noctilux [all shots were taken at f/16 for 10 to 30 seconds apiece, shot from the same brick of Kodak Royal Gold 100 print film stock, processed and printed by the same lab at the same time; I got the same results when scanning]. Big differences. The old glass had *much* warmer tones that did not exist in reality; the Noct produced shots that were much truer in color. Additionally, the old glass had veiled flare that the Noct was lacking. I attribute this to newer multi-coating on the Noct that was unavailable on the old glass. That said, however, I began to see the flare and warm tones in every shot that I took with the old glass, so I began to avoid it. Then the 1936 uncoated screwmount Xenon f/1.5 50mm came back from servicing. Tightly controlled B&W indoor shots had nice, dreamy renditions. However, any *normal* color shooting had artifacting that is unacceptable by normal modern standards; bad flare, bad bokeh, etc. This was one of the worse lenses I have ever used and really should be considered a collector item more than anything else. An example can be seen at the following URL: http://members.aol.com/zeissleica/private/Bluebells.jpg Frustrated by the fact I was becoming a Leica snob (and the lack of corresponding Leica snob funds ;-), I began to pickup Voigtländer glass to start making a decision on what my next Leica purchase would be. In the meantime, I sold all of the old Leica glass to save up for some new big-ticket Leica lenses. - - I purchased the Cosina 25mm first; slow lens with decent results, but would avoid it now, as it does *not* couple with the rangefinder and the viewfinder does *not* accurately reflect the lens coverage. - - The Voigtländer 35mm f/1.7 was second; *very* nice lens with good speed, sharp images and bokeh similar to some of the older Leica 35mm designs. Excellent glass for the price; highly recommended. - - I picked up the Voigtländer 50mm f/1.5 while my Noctilux was being serviced in Solms; very good speed, delivers plenty sharp images, but somewhat harsh bokeh. This is a very decent 50 for a first lens, though it may be too big for some. - - The Voigtländer 28mm f/1.9 was next; good speed and *nice* results. This lens, in my opinion, is the closest Voigtländer has come in build quality to Leica lens construction. Again, excellent glass for the price; highly recommended. - - Picked up the Voigtländer 21mm last here in the past few months; not a fast lens and it is frustrating to work with when the light begins to fade, but it does deliver good results. Not to be used for creating panoramas, as there is too much distortion at the edges. Finally, I purchased a new screwmount Leica Summicron 50mm as a splurge more recently and have been getting the first films processed and scanned from it. WOW!!! I am stunned by the results! *This* is what everyone is referring to when they speak of the Leica look; it is simply amazing. If I had to do it all over again, I would sit on my hands and *not* buy anything else but a Leica Summicron 28, 35 or 50 as my first lens [new or recent used], no matter how long it took. Voigtländer will get you shooting in a jiffy, but you will kick yourself for going that direction if you should ever get a recent Summicron and compare. Just my two cents worth. /Mitch Zeissler > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of JP M > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 8:28 AM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: [Leica] New M6 owner, what first Lens?? > > I just yesterday purchased a Classic M6 body from Richard Tillis at Woodmere Camera. It should arrive > toward the end of this week or early next. I'm on a tight budget and am now searching for a first > lens. I need a good value, but not state-of-the-art-optics. Thread mount is OK, non-Leica is OK. > My favorite cameras to date are my Canonet g3 ql17 with a 40mm and my Rollie 35SE also with > a 40mm. I'd be very happy with a 35mm or even a 28mm. But a 50mm would be OK if it were > the "best value." My requirements are that the lens sync up with the body, meaning the framelines > come up correctly and the rangefinder is fully and accurately coupled and the optics > and mechanical aspects are perfect. Cosmetics secondary. Any thoughts? Thanks, Jeff - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html