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 write-up
From: mark at (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Thu Jun 24 17:56:29 2004

On 6/24/04 10:05 AM, "Henning Wulff" <> wrote:

> 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.

As the 35 1.4 was in most ways so superior to the 50 Summicron and Summilux
it  really meant they needed a newer more modern 50 optic to catch up. And
make a proper balance.
I expect a 50 to be my sharpest lens as optically I believe that is the way
it's supposed to be.
Just a little sharper than a 35 or a short tele.

But maybe match up pretty much the same.

... But  certainly not a lot worse!

Mark Rabiner
Portland Oregon

In reply to: Message from henningw at (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Erwin's Summilux writeup)