Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/01/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Is the 50 Summilux-M the poor cousin?
From: Ray Moth <ray_moth@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:16:44 -0800 (PST)

Dear All,

Recently, I was unexpectdly offered the chance to buy a used 50mm/1.4
Summilux-M (Wetzlar version with slotted shade, vintage ~1973). It was
in ex+ condition and the asking price was only $650, so I "struck while
the iron was hot", not wanting to miss a bargain.

Now, I hadn't really considered the 50 Summilux before I bought it,
having been forced to make a hurried decision, so I was curious to see
what information and comments there might be about it on the web, such
as archived posts. I was rather surprised to see that relatively little
has been said in favour of this lens. It seems to be overshadowed by
other M lenses (e.g. Noctilux, 50 'cron, 75 'lux and 35 'lux ASPH).
Leica seems to have neglected it, having made no significant
improvements in the last 18 years or so, apart from reducing the
minimum focusing distance.

To me, the 50 Summilux provides the ideal compromise of speed, size,
weight and cost. My only other lenses are a 3E and a 90 Elmarit-M, so I
thought that the 'lux would be a useful addition for use in low
available light. I've found this to be true and have been very pleased
with the results. So why is it that the 50 Summilux seems to be the
poor cousin of other lenses in the M stable?

Regards,

=====
Ray

"The trouble with resisting temptation is
 you never know when you'll get another chance!"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> (Re: [Leica] Is the 50 Summilux-M the poor cousin?)