Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/10

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

Subject: [Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question
From: len-001 at verizon.net (Leonard Taupier)
Date: Wed Dec 10 16:14:34 2008
References: <C565BE71.46455%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Mark,

I have gotten better results from my 3.5 Summaron on my IIIf then on  
my M8. I don't know why this is. I always though my results on film  
were pretty good. Of course I had nothing to compare it to. In LTM  
mount the Elmar is not as good and the 2.8 Summaron is a collector's  
item as only 5000 or so were made. And before I get interrogated on  
why I don't use CV or Zeiss or any other brand lens, it's because I  
don't want to. On the M8 I have a much larger selection of lenses to  
compare to the 3.5 version. In those cases it looks very low contrast  
to just about any M lens I own. So I will continue to enjoy the lens  
on my LTM bodies and be very happy with it.

Len


On Dec 10, 2008, at 6:44 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:

> The f3.5 Summaron is no doubt a different ballgame from the 2.8 but  
> I will
> say I'm not experiencing any lack of contrast with it and is my  
> most used
> lens when shooting LTM which is my main mode of shooting Leica over  
> the past
> several years. Its results do not appear to be all that different  
> from most
> other lenes I've used. Some day I'll be working from top grade  
> scans from
> these negs or a digital M and make 17x22 prints from them but as of  
> now I'd
> recommend these lenes which are handy, accessible, not all that  
> pricey and
> at least "nice" performers. If the Leica fingerprint of this older  
> design is
> there its something which even in the darkroom I'd think would be  
> dealable
> by using a 3 contrast filter instead of a 2.5. Or another minute in  
> the
> developer. When working with scans you never as I said - see it.  
> I'd not
> mind a lens for me to use with some real noticeable different  
> character.
> Fore a different look. A distinctive fingerprint. My f3.5 Summaron  
> gives me
> farily normal results from all I can tell.
>
>
>
> mark@rabinergroup.com
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
>> From: Leonard Taupier <len-001@verizon.net>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:37:45 -0500
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question
>>
>> Seth,
>>
>> Your review in VF Vol 37 No 4 is very impressive. It's probably the
>> most comprehension review of any lens I've ever seen. After you
>> mentioned the 2.8 Summaron I went searching the web for it. Yup it's
>> gotten up there in price. I wish I had one as that generation of
>> Leica lenses give me the look I really like.
>>
>> Len
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2008, at 5:27 PM, Seth Rosner wrote:
>>
>>> Greg, it is why eBay prices for the 35/2,8 Summaron have risen
>>> recently. The 3/4 sensor eliminates the corner fall-off in both
>>> resolution and contrast and reduces to a hardly perceptible minimum
>>> this lens' field curvature. Not owning an M8 (yet) I cannot confirm
>>> my opinon that this lens will now outperform the 35 Summicrons
>>> right up until the ASPH version while preserving the well-known
>>> Leica look of the period. The legend that this lens lacks contrast
>>> is simply untrue. And stopped down to 5,6, it is not too far from
>>> the ASPH version. See VIEWFINDER Vol 37 No 4, pp 39-40.
>>>
>>> Seth
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Lorenzo"
>>> <gregj_lorenzo@hotmail.com>
>>> To: "Leica Users Group LUG" <lug@leica-users.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:50 PM
>>> Subject: RE: [Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The 35 I'd use would have to have the right look (for me). This
>>> probably means not the latest version of Leica's current 35mm lens
>>> line.
>>>
>>> Greg Lorenzo
>>> Calgary, Canada> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:44:52 -0500> Subject:
>>> Re: [Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question> From:
>>> mark@rabinergroup.com> To: lug@leica-users.org> > If you're used to
>>> 50's then with an M8 I'd find a nice 35 to have be your> favorite
>>> lens.> 35 * 1.33> = 46.55> > > A 50 gives you 65. Not so much an
>>> "all around" lens.> > > > mark@rabinergroup.com> Mark William
>>> Rabiner> > > > > From: Alan Magayne-Roshak <amr3@uwm.edu>> > Reply-
>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec
>>> 2008 23:25:52 -0600 (CST)> > To: lug <lug@leica-users.org>> >
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question> > > > Original
>>> Message:> >> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:52:43 -0500> >> From: Leonard
>>> Taupier <len-001@verizon.net>> > > >> The 50mm collapsible
>>> Summicron has absolutely no problem when> >> collapsed on the M8
>>> body. The clearance from the end of the collapsed> >> mount to the
>>> M8 shutter is about 1/2". I don't know about the 90mm> >> Elmar.
>>> But if you have the lens just measure the distance from the> >>
>>> mount to the end of the collapsed lens. The M8 flange to shutter>
>>>>> distance is about 31/32". If the collapsed lens is 3/4" or
>>> greater> >> from mount to end I probably would not collapse it when
>>> on the M8. In> >> any case I have a few collapsible lenses with
>>> adequate clearance but> >> always keep them extended as leica
>>> recommends. The 90mm macro which> >> Leica says is OK does not
>>> extend pass the lens mount at all.> >
>>> __________________________________________________________________>
>>>> Thanks for the information(Nathan too).> > > > I have collapsible
>>> Summicrons in both bayonet and LTM, plus the 90 Elmar> >
>>> collapsible, and I use that feature all the time, so I wondered if
>>> these would> > work if I won the lottery and was able to get an
>>> M8. ;~)> > > > > > Alan> > > > Alan Magayne-Roshak, Senior
>>> Photographer> > UPAA POY 1978> > University Information Technology
>>> Services> > University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee> > http://
>>> gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/> > > > > > > > > >
>>> _______________________________________________> > Leica Users
>>> Group.> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more
>>> information> > > > _______________________________________________>
>>> Leica Users Group.> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug
>>> for more information
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
>>> http://windowslive.com/Explore/hotmail?
>>> ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --
>>> ----------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.16/1841 - Release Date:
>>> 12/10/2008 9:30 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] M-lenses on M8 - A Question)