35mm Summicron ASPH: The ugly lens?

[Turtle]

I am 34 and find the more I know the more I realise I want to know to achieve my expanding goals. I will confess to playing with new films and devs, but do so with non critical work only. I am not a gear head because images are always more interesting than lumps of metal, but I do enjoy using equipment that feels right in my hands and produces images that please me. Lately that has generally been using a Leica M and a variety of lenses, including the not so expensive CV 35 Pancake II. In fact this lens is becoming a firm favourite (compact) and having done solid tests side by side with the Biogon as my benchmark, I found at that to my eyes the contrast was not severe at all, the bokeh perfectly OK, its flare resistance very good, resolution superb etc. I have read goodness knows how many reviews about the awful bokeh, the severe contrast, the poor tonality and was not surprised to find out that it is all rubbish. It is not perfect, but it is (with a good sample) very good indeed. I mention this because like the 35 asph cron, there is a lot of negative info on the web from people who are doing the Quickie Mart processing thing and complaining about its rendering. Its the same tired story.

Its funny isn't it that I am shooting the project of a lifetime largely on two types of lens (ZMs and Color Skopar) that many claim are harsh, overly contrasty - I am not stupid and would not be doing this if I could not get negs that both myself and my printer think are right on the money. Its all about exposure and processing. If your B&W negs are harsh it is your error, not that of the lens.

 

[x-ray]

Its funny isn't it that I am shooting the project of a lifetime largely on two types of lens (ZMs and Color Skopar) that many claim are harsh, overly contrasty - I am not stupid and would not be doing this if I could not get negs that both myself and my printer think are right on the money. Its all about exposure and processing. If your B&W negs are harsh it is your error, not that of the lens.

I'm with you 100%. It seems like one person makes a statement like this lens is "harsh" or "contrasty" or "dull" or "flat" and everyone repeats it with no basis for their statement. Visual judgements are made from internet images on uncalibrated monitors that are poorly scanned and often done by people that aren't particularly good technicians either. With subject matter and lighting conditions varying dramatically how can anyone really come to a meaningful conclusion. Most of this comes down to believing what you want to believe whether it's about contrast, bokeh or the tooth ferry. Look at how people glamorize lenses using terms like "glow" and "romance". Seems to me this is a new way to say the lens flares and isn't very sharp. It's like saying "executive assistant' instead if secretary.