Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/21

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

Subject: [Leica] 35mm Summicron R lens - good , bad, so so?
From: alal at poly.edu (Akhil Lal)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:28:05 -0400 (EDT)
References: <BLU0-SMTP83B191AFFD2D90C0C7D4538C510@phx.gbl> <Pine.GSO.4.62.1106212203150.17387@duke.poly.edu> <BANLkTikgMj1PRdP93UWhfdnpjcxACOTUzw@mail.gmail.com>

I think you are being too kind to the designers.

The R system offered only one fast 35 for many years so it's not as if we 
had much choice. Those of us who wanted true Summicron quality were out of 
luck.  I don't know why they ever bothered to release a 6 element high 
speed retrfocus WA with such a weak performance. FWIW, I was not happy 
with the 28 mm Elmarit R Type I either. I tied 3 samples, could not get a 
really good one, new or used. The RF lenses are of no use if one is 
carrying an R system.

>From the late 80's to the early 90s I ws able to build up a Contax system 
with a good selection of fast WA lenses: 21/2.8. 28/2.9 35/1.4 distagons. 
The CZ lenses were good enough, at least my specimans were, that I sold 
off my R wide angles.

At this point in time I do not advocate the use of any of the WA R lenses 
on C***N or N****N digital bodies. Why not buy a 21/2.8, 28/2.0 or 35/1.4 
CZ lens in ZE or ZF2 mount instead?

MTF curves of the new 35/1.5 Distagon ZF and ZE were posted on the Zeiss 
web site. Have a lok to se how good the lens is. Of course, MTF curvers 
are not everything, but they do indicate  how well corrected a lens is 
and what to expect under optimum conditions




  On Wed, 22 Jun 2011, Marty Deveney wrote:

> This points out something interesting: the 35/2 R lens is optimised
> for contrast at 5 lp/mm - you can see this clearly from the MTF
> charts.  Its resolution of finer details is relatively poor.  If you
> are looking for a lot of fine detail resolution, as you might if using
> slow colour slide film, this probably isn't the lens for you, despite
> the excellent colour rendition.  It works incredibly well with 400
> speed B&W neg films.  I haven't used it on a DMR or any other digital
> cameras.
>
> Another option is the Zeiss ZF 35/2, but not for an R camera,
> obviously.  The Zeiss is a better lens than the Summicron-R, but is
> about the size of the Summilux-R.  Sometimes you get what you ask for,
> sometimes you ask for what you get.
>
> Marty
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Akhil Lal <alal at poly.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Vick if you look in the archives you'll find my opinion of this lens is 
>> not
>> very high. K'chromes projected with the last generation Super Colorplan 
>> on a
>> large screen revealed it shortcomings very clearly. A 50 Summilux type II 
>> or
>> 19 mm Elmarit type II it aint.
>>
>> I've owned and sold *several* specimens of the 35/2.0 R, both type I and
>> type II, and would not recommend it. If your budget stretches to it try a
>> 35mm Summilux R.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011, Vick Ko wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Are there shooters using the 35mm f2 Summicron-R lens out there?
>>>
>>> What do you think of it?
>>>
>>> ...Vick


In reply to: Message from vick.ko at sympatico.ca (Vick Ko) ([Leica] 35mm Summicron R lens - good , bad, so so?)
Message from alal at poly.edu (Akhil Lal) ([Leica] 35mm Summicron R lens - good , bad, so so?)
Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] 35mm Summicron R lens - good , bad, so so?)