Image Sharpness of Summicron-C 40mm

Update

Update

So - diagnosis from leica repair person is that my lens is badly out of alignment. He's going to reset and adjust. Due back next week. I'm keen to test it out again and hope to get the sort of results the other forum members have spoken about. At least I know now that I wasn't going crazy. Not quite the $50 one of the people talked about - $280. But so long as it makes a big difference, I'm happy to pay it.
 
Just to note for the record, the high priest of Wetzlar, king of the MTFs, Erwin Puts ranks the 90mm Elmar-C above the 40mm Summicron-C. If I recall correctly he puts the Summicron-C somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd iterations of of the 35mm Summicron, but the Elmar he praises more lavishly. Someone ele here will ahve the text to hand to verify or refute... I'm awfuly glad though that you solved your problem. The CL and the 40mm were my first camera/lens combo, bought in 1980 from a waiter I knew, likely hot I'm sorry to say. $275 for the set, which is almost $800 now. Legit outfits would have charged much more of course. The way Pan-X and Tri-X looked out of that camera, that's what I thought all photographs ought to look like. It was a perfect match of character with my aesthetic and I've never really shaken it. For a Leica lens it's not, to my eye, the sharpness that shouts (though it's plenty sharp as we've seen here), but the contrast and the tones. I don't own a lens that handles blacks and dark grays as beautifully as the 40mm Summicron.

For anyone interested there's a "show me your 40mm" thread in the Optics forum. Check it out. They do look different. People say the Rokkor 40mm is just as good but in that way I'm talking about, I don't think so. the VC 40/1.4 however.... that gives the Summicron a run. But it still doesn't have the full character.
 
PS for the short time I owned it I thought the Canonet GIII 17's 40mm f/1.7 had a similar feel to the Summicron C. Opinion of anyone who knows both would be interesting.
 
sparrow6224 said:
PS for the short time I owned it I thought the Canonet GIII 17's 40mm f/1.7 had a similar feel to the Summicron C. Opinion of anyone who knows both would be interesting.
Click to expand...

My experience is that the Canon lens is a bit "edgier" with less contrast, but the 40 mm on Minolta's compact fixed-lens RF cameras came very close. The Olympus RC and SP series also had similar-performing lenses.
 
7827110454_dac7f81f90_b.jpg


Both are enlarged to about 150cm.. both @f5.6.. one is the Summicron 35/2 Aspherical and the other one Summicron-C 40/2. I can't say one is sharper than the other one..
 
Strange... the 40mm looks more contrasty than the 35/aspherical (assuming the 40mm is the one on the right).
 
Hi all,

I am rather a newbie in the Leica world, and I am using Leica CL with Summicron-C 40/2. I have to confess that I am still struggling in assessing the "level" of sharpness in, what I think, sharp images. So I very much appreciate if you can share your informed opinion about the level of sharpness for the two photographs below taken with Summicron-C 40/2. I can then use your opinions as yardstick for my future photographs, or those taken by others. Also it would be good to know whether those shots reflect the capacity of this highly praised lens.

The first shot was taken wide open, and the second one was I think at f/8.

If it matters, I used Ilford XP2 Super 400 for both shots, and they were scanned at the lab not at the highest resolution possible I reckon.

Many thanks in advance.

7744210256_3b379ef8f3_z.jpg



7578768534_1f228463d1_z.jpg
 
For my M-Rokkor 40mm (Summicron-C later version), I think it performs the sweetest between f/4-5.6...
The picture of the kid is sharp for me, but don't expect any lens except the 3000$ summiluxes to perform super sharp at f/2...
Rangefinders are good for getting personnal with people, just like in your nice portrait. Leave architecture to SLRs...
If you want super sharp walls of brick you'll need to go to f/8, past that it will become less "sharp".
Anyway, sharpness never makes a good photo.
 
Sylvester said:
For my M-Rokkor 40mm (Summicron-C later version), I think it performs the sweetest between f/4-5.6...
The picture of the kid is sharp for me, but don't expect any lens except the 3000$ summiluxes to perform super sharp at f/2...
Rangefinders are good for getting personnal with people, just like in your nice portrait. Leave architecture to SLRs...
If you want super sharp walls of brick you'll need to go to f/8, past that it will become less "sharp".
Anyway, sharpness never makes a good photo.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the insight Sylvester, much appreciated!
 
gilpen123 said:
Does anyone have stiff focusing ring on their 40 cron?
Click to expand...

yeah mine is a lot stiffer than with my other lenses .. still ok tho
I tried to drop in a tiny wee little (!) bit of oil since this always helped with gummed up russian lenses - not with the cron-C tho
 
gilpen123 said:
Does anyone have stiff focusing ring on their 40 cron?
Click to expand...

Yes they are naturally firmer in their focus than most other compact Leica lenses but as long as its smooth then everything is fine. What's strange is that when Minolta redesigned their 40mm for the CLE they went the opposite and those 40mm's are very light in their focus.
 
Just to note for the record, the high priest of Wetzlar, king of the MTFs, Erwin Puts ranks the 90mm Elmar-C above the 40mm Summicron-C.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that if thats the results he has printed. His tests on lenses other than Leicas newest are sometimes based on very old or well used samples. I remember once he criticised the build quality of a Voigtlander lens citing it had a screw missing only to reveal if you read closely the lens was a loaner from a journalist that has been using it extensively. It wasnt new at all or indicative of the lens when it was new. Also it should be noted Erwin had beef with the 40mm Summicron in that he is a strong advocate of you get what you pay for and thats why Leica lenses are so expensive and here was a little upstart that Leica built themselves proving they could make magnificent lenses for much less. I have the original tests from Popular photography who tested the lenses when new and with the same test process. Testing has changed over time so its not always possible to compare all tests over time however in this instance they were compared on the same bench at the same time and the Summicron C was the better lens. I dont seem to get that same sparkle with the Elmar that I get with the Summicron. The Elmar is good make no mistake but just not quite. I find that the Compact 90 TE does get closer even though it has a similar 4 element design but it flares more than the Elmar-C. The Elmar-C though is even more of a bargain than the Summicron C so for the money you cant go wrong.

PS for the short time I owned it I thought the Canonet GIII 17's 40mm f/1.7 had a similar feel to the Summicron C. Opinion of anyone who knows both would be interesting.
Click to expand...

I collect 40mm lenses so have been comparing them for a site I have been meaning to put up for years (Never enough time!) The do have a similar feel at 5.6 to 8 but edge performance to f4 the Summicron always wins out. But for the cost of a GIII the lens performance in quite astonishing.
 
This is my 2nd Cron 40 and I can't excatly remember how stiff it is but in general it is smooth and aligns perfectly at infinity. The lens is almost unused according to the seller, maybe I need to exercise it more.
 
Ron (Netherlands) said:
wasn't the summi 40mm optimized for the CLE and not meant to be used on other Leica's?
Click to expand...

It was said to be optimised for the CL and may or may not work on some M was the official line from Leica. However I have never seen any incompatibility issues with any M so I think it was more to try sway M users back to buying regular M lenses. The CLE and its lenses use a convention cam system the same an all M's however on their official notices as to lens compatibility Minolta list the steep sloped cammed Summicron C as being completely compatible so it does further suggest Leica was making it up. I have heard the odd user say they encountered this incompatibility issue but I have found over the years someone at least sometime has has a like issue with other Leica lenses and needed the lens to be matched to their particular camera body. I dont believe the 40mm can be singled out on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Initial thoughts of a new to me Pixii A2572+
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
randomphotoguy
R
S
Need help to check filter size
Replies
5
Views
540
Rayt
Rayt
EddieO
Parallax Correction Using Voigtlander 40mm on Leica IIIf
2
Replies
20
Views
914
aw614
A
T
Image brightness comparison
Replies
0
Views
194
Texsport
T
A
A day out with the SL2-S
Replies
7
Views
419
Archiver
A
Back
Top Bottom