Do you like the images from this lens when compared with images taken with your other lenses?
I don't have a lot of recent experience with M mount rangefinders, having been away from them for more then a decade, first with SLRs, then Contax/Nikon rangefinders. Even in that first go-round with M's I shot mostly the 50mm focal length, although I did shoot some with the Asph Summicron and the 4th (very little).
The major difference is back then I used a different scanning software. The scanning software I use now scans everything so flat and grey. Ha, ha, it's hard to tell what's due to the lens and what is due to the software. And recently it seems to be scanning everything even flatter, no matter camera, lens, film, ect. The initial shooting of this lens also occurred when I've been sampling different films and developers, so the baseline is a bit screwy.
Having said that, I'm pleasantly surprised with the build and optical quality of the replica. Sharp stopped down, high resolution, and beautiful bokeh; I can see why the original 8-element has such a strong following. I was worried about single coating and the Florida sun, but had only a single flare issue in 4 rolls w/ no hoods. I haven't done real testing with the lens; I just went out and shot it.
The replica is very different from the multi-coated Voigtlanders f/1.4 Nokton II and Ultron Asph, which are the other lenses I have in this focal length. Sharper then the Nokton, w/o as much contrast, and w/o the crazy bokeh, but not clinically sharp like the Ultron and the Asph Summicron.
Mine are just surface comments. I'll let the folks longer ingrained in M photography, like yourself, speak more authoritatively on the lens.
The only drawback, as I mentioned to Kevin, is that now I'm looking at the original 8-element, ha, ha, but really, with this replica, who needs one, outside of historical significance.
Look forward to seeing more of your comparison; original versus replica. A digital M is really a fine tool to have for testing.
