Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/06/24

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

Subject: [Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup
From: bdcolen at (B. D. Colen)
Date: Thu Jun 24 12:21:22 2004

Come on, Henning - I would think that when reviewing a new ASPH
Summilux, whatever the focal length, one would provide some comparison
with other Summilux lenses - particularly because the 35 ASPH is so
staggeringly good, as is the older 75. Great, the new 50 is better than
the old 50 Summilux. Big whoop. So, arguably, is the 50 Nokton for $2K
less. The question really is, is the new lens worth an investment of
$2.5K - does it produce images that compare to the Summilux lenses on
either side of it in the line-up. I think the answer's pretty obvious.
Because if the answer is "yes," you can bet that would have been
included in the review.

As to the difference in focal lengths - 35 is standard for me. I can get
closer with it than with the 50, I can crop in to get a 50-like image if
I want to; I get a bit more depth of field at 1.4 but can still isolate
subjects; and I can get more air, or more subjects into the frame,
without stepping back. But I realize we all have different preferences
and needs. :-)


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of
Henning Wulff
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:06 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: [Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup

At 8:50 PM -0400 6/23/04, B. D. Colen wrote:
>Speaking of subjectivity - Am I the only one to note that not only did 
>the recent review of the new Summilux 50 not compare it to the 35 
>Summilux ASPH, but it also did not compare it at all to the 75 
>Summilux. I would think that for $2500 this new 50 should at a minimum 
>produce images equal to that of the 35 and 75. No?

Not only did he fail to compare it to the 35 and 75's, he also failed 
to compare it to all the other focal lengths.

As most testers have noted at some time or other, you can't 
meaningfully compare lenses with different focal lengths. For your 
own use you might like to do a comparison between two lenses that you 
tend to use interchangeably, but that is different. I, like a lot of 
other people, don't use 35's and 50's interchangeably so the 
comparison would be rather pointless.

If I bought the new 50, I would be very unhappy to discover that it 
produced images equal to my 35 Summilux ASPH, when what I wanted was 
a narrower angle of view.....:-)

As far as image quality is concern, note that Erwin wrote that at all 
apertures that the 50 Summilux and Summicron have in common, the 
Summilux is better.

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  |[ ]|
Leica Users Group.
See for more information

Replies: Reply from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup)
Reply from jbcollier at (John Collier) ([Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup)
Reply from mark at (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Erwin's Summilux write-up)
Reply from leicaluvr at (Tom Schofield) ([Leica] Erwin's Summilux write-up)
In reply to: Message from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup)