x-ray
Veteran
I find your lens combination interesting, It's much like mine. About the only 90mm's I haven't owned is the v2 Elmarit and the last pre asph Summicron. I bought my first V1 Elmarit in 1968 and used it into the mid 70's. I then bought a 90 Summicron and used it for years. Later i had another Elmarit v1 and then another summicron. Later another v1 Elmarit and Tele Elmarit and a few Elmars thrown in to the mix for fun. Shortly after the Apo Asph came out I bought one but it was always plagued with problems from focusing mount binding to not focusing on my M9. I'm now back to the v1 Elmarit and will stay here. I also have a Minolta Elmar CL that's a fantastic lens. I'll keep both of these.
I find it interesting that you selected the Biogon or if the money was there the asph Summicron. The Summicron is radically different in look from the v1 Elmarit. The Biogon f2 is much closer in rendering and the images mix well with the V1 Elmarit IMO.
The Elmarit while not particularly flare prone is a lower contrast lens and could flare with a light source in the frame. Coatings were just not as efficient in the 60's. It's very pretty in that it's smooth like the V1 35 Summicron but quite sharp even wide open without being artificial or harsh. The Biogon is much like that but a bit higher contrast. I've never had flare problems with the v1 Elmarit but I use the deep shade with it at all times. I have never had any evidence of flare from the Biogon even with a light source in the frame.
Here's my feeling about sharpness, I overlooked too many excellent images in the past because they weren't as sharp or technically as good as another that I wound up printing. In recent years I've revisited old negatives back to the 50's and 60's. I've decided that content trumps technical perfection every time. Content is the most important because without great content the image is just a technically excellent picture not a great image showing emotion and soul. I've gone back and printed a number of images that were slightly soft or grainy or whatever it was that disturbed me in the beginning and now looking at the prints side by side with the ones that were technically better I'm much happier with the later prints.
Don't get suckered into the technical obsession. Make images for content and let technical factors be second. Enjoy the image for the soul in it not the detail in the corners. Put the emphasis on capturing your subject. I've looked at a lot of fine images in galleries. I and my wife drove to Atlanta last week to see a Gordon Parks show at the High Museum and took in a Bruce Davidson show at Jackson Fine Art. If technical flaws disturb you, you should never go to a show like this. There were out of focus images, blur and you name the flaw it was somewhere in the show. Gordon Parks images were from a major Life Magazine story and Bruce Davidsons were some of his most famous images. I also saw a Catier Bresson show about a year ago and his images were technical nightmares. He used a person to print his negs most often but there were prints that he personally made and they were terrible. I was printing better that that at 10 years old. It was obvious his exposures were from extreme under to very over exposed. Numerous images were blurred and some out of focus. I have an 11x14 silver gelatin print of the famous Dorothis Lange migrant mother with her children. This is the one that you see depicting the depression. If you look at it from about 3 feet it's very apparent it's a little out of focus. The focus was slightly behind the subject. The moral to the story is forget about the imperfections of the lens and just make photos for the content.
I find it interesting that you selected the Biogon or if the money was there the asph Summicron. The Summicron is radically different in look from the v1 Elmarit. The Biogon f2 is much closer in rendering and the images mix well with the V1 Elmarit IMO.
The Elmarit while not particularly flare prone is a lower contrast lens and could flare with a light source in the frame. Coatings were just not as efficient in the 60's. It's very pretty in that it's smooth like the V1 35 Summicron but quite sharp even wide open without being artificial or harsh. The Biogon is much like that but a bit higher contrast. I've never had flare problems with the v1 Elmarit but I use the deep shade with it at all times. I have never had any evidence of flare from the Biogon even with a light source in the frame.
Here's my feeling about sharpness, I overlooked too many excellent images in the past because they weren't as sharp or technically as good as another that I wound up printing. In recent years I've revisited old negatives back to the 50's and 60's. I've decided that content trumps technical perfection every time. Content is the most important because without great content the image is just a technically excellent picture not a great image showing emotion and soul. I've gone back and printed a number of images that were slightly soft or grainy or whatever it was that disturbed me in the beginning and now looking at the prints side by side with the ones that were technically better I'm much happier with the later prints.
Don't get suckered into the technical obsession. Make images for content and let technical factors be second. Enjoy the image for the soul in it not the detail in the corners. Put the emphasis on capturing your subject. I've looked at a lot of fine images in galleries. I and my wife drove to Atlanta last week to see a Gordon Parks show at the High Museum and took in a Bruce Davidson show at Jackson Fine Art. If technical flaws disturb you, you should never go to a show like this. There were out of focus images, blur and you name the flaw it was somewhere in the show. Gordon Parks images were from a major Life Magazine story and Bruce Davidsons were some of his most famous images. I also saw a Catier Bresson show about a year ago and his images were technical nightmares. He used a person to print his negs most often but there were prints that he personally made and they were terrible. I was printing better that that at 10 years old. It was obvious his exposures were from extreme under to very over exposed. Numerous images were blurred and some out of focus. I have an 11x14 silver gelatin print of the famous Dorothis Lange migrant mother with her children. This is the one that you see depicting the depression. If you look at it from about 3 feet it's very apparent it's a little out of focus. The focus was slightly behind the subject. The moral to the story is forget about the imperfections of the lens and just make photos for the content.
ferider
Veteran
This is my Skopar at medium aperture, Andriirad, on the M240, with a B+W cut filter:
Note that I am not using the PII, but the second LTM version with 39mm filter: I like its size and handling. Also, I am using a Leica LTM adapter, and re-calibrated the RF coupling myself (easy DIY on the Skopar) to be perfect on my M.
I also have the Summicron vIII, a very clean copy, and my Skopar is "sharper" at every f-stop and anywhere in the field. Then again, the Summicron is magic on B+W film, that's why I keep it.
Waiting for the new Ultron is not a bad move, see my post #14.
Roland.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
It is an excellent lens: my favourite 35mm. However, the very different M-Hexanon 35mm lens is probably technically "better" in terms of distortion, corner sharpness and so on. I'd guess the M-Hexanon 35 is likely at least the equal of the Biogon 35mm/f2 technically (though probably different in matters such as colour rendering and the like) and from what I can tell, having not owned the Biogon, the M-Hex and the UC Hex have higher build quality. However, both the UC and M-Hex seem to cost a good deal more, these days, than the Biogon which quite possibly makes the latter better value.
...Mike
dreamsandart
Well-known
x-ray.
Thank you for that post. Good lens example and thoughtful take on 'quality' of content over technical. Good modern lenses can be a benefit sometimes, but it still comes down to the photographer; knowing your equipment, and the process of getting a 'vision' to the final product.
Thank you for that post. Good lens example and thoughtful take on 'quality' of content over technical. Good modern lenses can be a benefit sometimes, but it still comes down to the photographer; knowing your equipment, and the process of getting a 'vision' to the final product.
andriirad
Member
I guess I made my decision) Will go to the Summarit side
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
Are you sure about that designation? Because Summarit-M would make more sense to me
...Mike
Last edited:
andriirad
Member
Are you sure about that designation? Because Summarit-M would make more sense to me
...Mike
Off course Summarit! Simple mistype)
segedi
RFicianado
I had the original Summarit 35mm, foolishly sold it, and now have a new one on order. As well as a 75mm Summarit. I think you'll do well with the Summarit and if not, can sell for the same or more than your purchase price.
Tonkatsu-Dog
Established
I have the summarit 2.5 discussed... I quite like it - It seems sharp to me although I haven't really pixel peeped it. Bookeh is OK although I suspect you'd go for a lux or a cron if that is really what you are looking for.
One thing I should mention is how small and light it is which is a big plus. I picked mine up second hand, build quality is alright. However I felt trough all the 5-6 lenses they had in the store picking one of the two where the focus ring wasn't too 'loose' in my opinion.
Below are 2 samples with the M240.
L1002238 by H0lidays1, on Flickr
L1002061 by H0lidays1, on Flickr
One thing I should mention is how small and light it is which is a big plus. I picked mine up second hand, build quality is alright. However I felt trough all the 5-6 lenses they had in the store picking one of the two where the focus ring wasn't too 'loose' in my opinion.
Below are 2 samples with the M240.
L1002238 by H0lidays1, on FlickrL1002061 by H0lidays1, on Flickr