djon
Well-known
... no, older lenses do NOT "have lower contrast and good resolution."
That's a bigger generalization than mine by far! Wow!
Many have POOR resolution, by the best standards of their era (early Minolta LTM teles, for example, and some Serenars, and some Nikkors and Leicas...such as the 1.5), and very low (not "lower") contrast, not to mention flare in lighting situations that would be easily digested by black Canons and current CVs.
If one LIKES lower resolution and low contrast prints, fine. But if one then sharpens the image and tweaks the contrast up in post-processing...
Aizan stated his view (he likes old lenses on old cameras for unspecified reasons), I stated mine (I like new lenses because they're generally sharp and resist flare). You (Joe) aren't so concerned with sharpness and you like "lower" contrast. OK, three views : Should we avoid expressing preferences? For that matter, should we avoid disagreeing? It's not a "classic case" of anything, it's just three people with three views.
That's a bigger generalization than mine by far! Wow!
Many have POOR resolution, by the best standards of their era (early Minolta LTM teles, for example, and some Serenars, and some Nikkors and Leicas...such as the 1.5), and very low (not "lower") contrast, not to mention flare in lighting situations that would be easily digested by black Canons and current CVs.
If one LIKES lower resolution and low contrast prints, fine. But if one then sharpens the image and tweaks the contrast up in post-processing...
Aizan stated his view (he likes old lenses on old cameras for unspecified reasons), I stated mine (I like new lenses because they're generally sharp and resist flare). You (Joe) aren't so concerned with sharpness and you like "lower" contrast. OK, three views : Should we avoid expressing preferences? For that matter, should we avoid disagreeing? It's not a "classic case" of anything, it's just three people with three views.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
john,
lighten up man!
joe
lighten up man!
joe
back alley
IMAGES
backalley photo said:
let me edit this...
this is an obvious case of...and i foolishly state it even tho it's obvious.
i like my older lenses, they have blah blah...
i'm not out to discourage anything here. if you prefer john, i'll stay away from your posts.
sheesh back at ya!
joe
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
ChrisN said:
And the sad part is I only bid $151... :bang:
Just thought I'd stop lurking. Bought a CL a ways back, and more recently a couple QL17s. Now you folks have gone and got me lusting after a P...
back alley
IMAGES
welcome al.
my guess is the next one is yours!
joe
my guess is the next one is yours!
joe
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I'm going to step in here and mention something, though I'll probably regret it.
Two of the best lenses Nikon ever made, the 50/1.4 AI and the 28/2.8 AI Nikkor lenses, are around 30 years old. They are two of the sharpest lenses you can buy, even now. The older rigid Summicrons are just as good as the new ones. The Jupiter-8 lenses, which are rather old in most cases, are fine examples of very sharp yet rather old lenses.
Generalisations can bite *anyone* who uses them in the ass. I would simply refrain from using them at all.
Two of the best lenses Nikon ever made, the 50/1.4 AI and the 28/2.8 AI Nikkor lenses, are around 30 years old. They are two of the sharpest lenses you can buy, even now. The older rigid Summicrons are just as good as the new ones. The Jupiter-8 lenses, which are rather old in most cases, are fine examples of very sharp yet rather old lenses.
Generalisations can bite *anyone* who uses them in the ass. I would simply refrain from using them at all.
ChrisN
Striving
Hi Al, and welcome!
Ah, but you never know how much the winner was prepared to bid! The final price is really a reflection of what you were prepared to bid. Good luck with the pursuit of the P - it's worth it.
Chris
Al Patterson said:
Ah, but you never know how much the winner was prepared to bid! The final price is really a reflection of what you were prepared to bid. Good luck with the pursuit of the P - it's worth it.
Chris
popitz
The Rangefinder Junkie
all this talk about the P is getting me looking into them.
must resist....the temptation...
ok...i admit i'm weak...
now how much would you pay for this P with a 50/1.4?
must resist....the temptation...
ok...i admit i'm weak...
now how much would you pay for this P with a 50/1.4?
Last edited:
popitz
The Rangefinder Junkie
how 'bout a 7 with a 50/0.95, a 7s with a 50/1.4 or a 7 body?
djon
Well-known
Joe, don't "stay away from" my posts. 
State your views. Disagree. I love it.
I promise to regularly stress "IMO" : nobody ought to feel anxious when a person on this board states a differing perspective :angel:
IMO ( I M O ) nobody should get upset that I prefer SHARP , SNAPPY , healthy, modern (ie last forty years) lenses, and it's not controversial to want to keep the P uncluttered, not controversial to prefer neck straps to wrist straps.
IMO. I M O.
John
State your views. Disagree. I love it.
I promise to regularly stress "IMO" : nobody ought to feel anxious when a person on this board states a differing perspective :angel:
IMO ( I M O ) nobody should get upset that I prefer SHARP , SNAPPY , healthy, modern (ie last forty years) lenses, and it's not controversial to want to keep the P uncluttered, not controversial to prefer neck straps to wrist straps.
IMO. I M O.
John
djon
Well-known
I looked hard for an excellent LTM Summicron 50...in my own experience a good collapsible is as good as a rigid, so I had that extra option :
...unfortunately, the ones I found were ALL damaged (abrasions, fungus, haze) : I didn't want a collector's paperweight, I wanted a very sharp-at-big-aperture SHOOTER. So I bought a Nokton: mediocre build compared to Leica/Canon/Nikon, but very fine optically. Might as reasonably have bought a Canon 1.4.
ACCORDING TO the several vintage Leica dealers who recently had them for sale , LTM Summicrons are almost always flawed optically...and I didn't want to pay $400 for problems.
For context: My 49' Summaron 35 3.5 is a great lens....excellent condition, no fungus, very sharp when stopped-down. I prefer this "modern" (postwar) lens to my 37' Elmar 35...and I prefer my "new" 35 f2 Canon to the Summaron...though the Summaron may be the better portrait lens.
IMO.
:angel:
...unfortunately, the ones I found were ALL damaged (abrasions, fungus, haze) : I didn't want a collector's paperweight, I wanted a very sharp-at-big-aperture SHOOTER. So I bought a Nokton: mediocre build compared to Leica/Canon/Nikon, but very fine optically. Might as reasonably have bought a Canon 1.4.
ACCORDING TO the several vintage Leica dealers who recently had them for sale , LTM Summicrons are almost always flawed optically...and I didn't want to pay $400 for problems.
For context: My 49' Summaron 35 3.5 is a great lens....excellent condition, no fungus, very sharp when stopped-down. I prefer this "modern" (postwar) lens to my 37' Elmar 35...and I prefer my "new" 35 f2 Canon to the Summaron...though the Summaron may be the better portrait lens.
IMO.
:angel:
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
ChrisN said:
Well, I was willing to go a bit higher. Unfortunately, I was sleeping when the auction ended. I prefer to snipe live, rather than via software. The winner should be glad I didn't raise his price $100 or so...
Thanks for the welcome guys. I'm a Canon user from way back. I have an AE-1, two A-1s, two QL17's, and a bunch of FD lenses. Also, two Leica CLs, a bunch of digitals, a Yashica Mat 124G, a Pentax 90WR, and a few others on loan to relatives.
I really shouldn't have joined RFF, I should have joined the GAS 12 step program...
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
There WAS a rigid Summicron made in LTM mount, but it's rather rare.
R
ray_g
Guest
John, some suggestions based on my limited experience:
- the Canon 50/1.5 I sold to Joe is plenty sharp wide open. Not a small lens, but smaller than the Nokton.
- I have no experience with the Canon 50/1.8's performance wide open. The Nikkor 50/1.4 was apparently optimized for wide aperture shooting.
- I have a 50/2 Nikkor which gives me high contrast, high resolution performance which IMHO is somewhere in between my 50 M-Hexanon and Coll. M Summicron.
As you know, the older Nikkors and Canons have held up better than the older Leitz lenses. I would look for those.
- the Canon 50/1.5 I sold to Joe is plenty sharp wide open. Not a small lens, but smaller than the Nokton.
- I have no experience with the Canon 50/1.8's performance wide open. The Nikkor 50/1.4 was apparently optimized for wide aperture shooting.
- I have a 50/2 Nikkor which gives me high contrast, high resolution performance which IMHO is somewhere in between my 50 M-Hexanon and Coll. M Summicron.
As you know, the older Nikkors and Canons have held up better than the older Leitz lenses. I would look for those.
djon
Well-known
Thanks Ray...but I did get the Nokton and am quite pleased with its performance. It's superbly sharp, has nice bokeh, is not excessively flat or contrasty, makes no compromise optically.
Unfortunately it's gigantic.
I'd certainly advocate against my big fat CV unless someone's determined to have the most modern, fast 50mm optics for an LTM, as I was. Unfortunately I accept the negative reports about old LTM Summicrons.
I might have bought a Canon 1.4 because of the exquisite performance of my FD SSC 1.4, but in the end I simply wanted a no-compromises 50. One cool thing: 52mm filters (Nikon slr size).
Unfortunately it's gigantic.
I'd certainly advocate against my big fat CV unless someone's determined to have the most modern, fast 50mm optics for an LTM, as I was. Unfortunately I accept the negative reports about old LTM Summicrons.
I might have bought a Canon 1.4 because of the exquisite performance of my FD SSC 1.4, but in the end I simply wanted a no-compromises 50. One cool thing: 52mm filters (Nikon slr size).