OK, boys: help me spend!

M

merciful

Guest
Well, my M3 is enroute, and my studio-mate has offered to buy my M6, with the proviso that it be always available to me should I want it: he'll use it for family work mostly. That frees up some cash for glass. Leica glass, I guess it's time to give in a little to the mystique.

So! The Noctilux and the 75mm Summilux are out of the question; the new 50mm Summilux as well. I don't hear good things about the last 50 Summilux, either. Right now, the older 90 Summilux and an old, old, 50/1.5 lead the lust-pack.

Suggestions?
 
Boys? Can girls play as well?

I didn't know that there was a 90 Summilux (mis-print for Summicron?). The current 90 Elmarit is a very fine lens and not expensive by Leica standards. I don't have a 90 Summicron to compare it to, but the word is that the pre apo-asph Summicron is not in the same league as the Elmarit.

The current 50 Summilux isn't all that bad - it's one of my favourite lenses. A lot of people like it, a lot don't like it. If I only had one 50, that would be the one. I'll post some snaps taken with it later if you want.

Regards,
Helen
 
Mis-print for sure, Helen: thanks. I'm unsure whether the 90 Elmarit will cut it for me, if I'm going to spend all that money for only a half-stop advantage over my CV 90/3.5 lens. But I have indeedheard that the pre-ASPH Summicron isn't a show-stopper. I'm a real low-light freak: that's what interests me so much about it.

My Konica 50/2 is a brilliant performer all-around, I think I'll give a pre-Summilux vintage 50mm a whirl before the more modern stuff.
 
So, are you opening yourself to a Summicron 50/2 and probably a Summitar 50/2? Have you considered wide angles?

I don't think there's a Summilux as long as 90mm, much less "old". Are you sure you don't mean a Summicron 90/2? Also, as Helen pointed out, there are others like the Tele-Elmarit, the Elmarit and the Elmar (which is slower); I myself have an old Elmar in LT mount, made in 1936, which delivers the goods even if it makes the camera look rather funny.
 
Yes, that was a mis-print: I'm still a trifle unsteady with the Leica-nomenclature.

The 50/2 lenses are of some interest to me, but my Konica 50/2 is terrific. I'd be more inclined toward the 50/1.5 Summarit or early Summilux. Something that's been used and beat up for awhile. I frequently need that extra stop, for light and aesthetic reasons.

I'm just not in that wide-angle mood these days. Never have been, really.

Outside the Leica range, I'd be interested in a Nikkor or Canon 50/1.2, too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love my Summarit's. I have one for the M3 and for screw mount. Each ran me ~215 With a CLA at Essex, 125 for the lens+90 for the CLA.

This is an old picture, but is readily available. i have scanned more in, but they are on another machine. I will get more posted. The Nikkor is sharper and has higher "apparent" contrast. The Summarit yields a more pleasing portrait and is great for people and portraits. At F4 it is quite sharp, and yields more "structure" than does the Nikkor. The higher contrast of the Nikkor tends to lose fine detail, especially outdoors in bright sun. it is more "picture postcard" rather than densitometer scan.
 
The "Summarit Peacock", outdoors at ~F5.6 shot through a fence. Remember, this is a $125 lens after CLA. This is with the Summarit in M-Mount on the M3.
 
Last edited:
Bingo! That's right where I want to be, Brian. Thanks for the examples.
 
I opened up a "Summarit" album on the Gallery. I moved this shot over to it. The Summarit has a lot of personality, and does not follow the "Bolder, Brighter is always Better" design. Not that there is anything wrong with that... but not just all the time!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom