Should I upgrade my lenses?

S

sgy1962

Well-known
Local time
12:39 AM
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
238
As a purely practical matter, in real life hand held shooting, much of it indoors, and almost all of it B&W, am I going to see any difference if I upgrade any of my Leica circa late 1980's / very early 1990's lenses (50mm summicron; 35mm summicron; 90mm tele-elmarit; 50mm summilux) to the current Leica models? With the imminent price increase, if I'm going to upgrade any lenses, it should be this month, because after July 1 the decision will be made for me (i.e., they will be too expensive). I've even been thinking about adding an M7, possibly with a 0.58 viewfinder (I wear glasses), but it seems contrary to conventional wisdom to have more money tied up in your dodies, then in your lenses. Any thoughts, pros, cons, flames, any thing, would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
Sorry, man. You've already got the best. If you want to unload thousands of dollars more you MIGHT be able to see a difference if you upgrade. If you shoot hand held, keep what you have. You'll be sorry to see those lenses go, believe me. They have a "look".
 
Dodies sounds good to me! :) WRT the lenses, I would say absolutely not. I have one of the lenses you have (the 90mm TE) and I wouldn't trade it for the world! However, I am thinking about getting another Leica body. You read everywhere that bodies don't count but I think it was Mike Johnston who once wrote in his column that it was OK to buy Leica bodies and put different brand glass on them - an opinion I subscribe to BTW. :)
 
I would only consider trading both your 50's in for the current Asph. 50/1.4 version unless your keeping the older 50/1.4 for it's creamy OOF.
 
The 50/1.4 ASPH is essentially on par with the 50/2 summicron and it has an extra stop. I shoot the 90TE alongside the summicron and summilux ASPH and usually don't notice a great difference except in speed and a little bit in "pop"...essentially edge sharpness and definition. Here's a pop quiz. These are three photos taken with the 50 cron, 50 lux ASPH and 90TE. Which was taken with which lens? Even if you can guess, does it seem like there is a huge difference in performance?

red-and-green.jpg


ToshiCCWS.jpg


flowery-faucet.jpg



The differences will be more in the photos themselves (subject, exposure, film, focus, aperture, camera shake etc), than in the lenses. I would say there is no real sense in upgrading unless you want to consolidate your fifties by going to the 50 asph.
 
I should add that it is very hard to tell the difference on the web, but I think all of these photos stand up very well to enlargement as well.
 
I'd take Rogers advice here, you've already got some cracking glass. Just keep using it.

I'll take that advice myself as well. Thanks Roger, you've just saved me a small fortune.
 
Yes, but wait until the prices rise. Someone has got to keep Leica afloat.
 
2nd body.

the time to upgrade is when you are good as your lenses are...

joe
(and no, i don't follow my own advice;))
 
i'd say stay with the glass you have, they're great. an extra body is always nice, one for color, one for b&w; or to have on hand when you might want to send one away for a cla...or you could dedicate a specific lens to a certain body. the reasons for justification are endless.
 
The summilux 35/1.4 ASPH is the best f/1.4 lens I've ever used. The ones I've had are: Nikon 85/1.4 AIS, Nikon 35/1.4 AIS, Canon 24/1.4L, Canon 35/1.4L, M42 Pentax SMC Tak 50/1.4, Canon EF50/1.4. I have a borrowed Summicron-M 50, and just sold a Summicron-R 50 (current ROM). I spent a day with a friend's gen2 Summilux-R 50 (since I considered buying one until I got the very likable M42 Pentax SMC). I've never used the pre-ASPH lux (M), or the R mount 35/1.4. But none of the other fast lenses I've owned or used hold a candle to the lux 35 ASPH wide open. The Canon 35L surprisingly is very close at center. The lux 35A is better at f/1.4 than either of the cron 50s at f/2. Stop it down half a stop, and it outresolves color film at anything beyond 8ft; you'd need to shoot something like TMX or Delta100 to tell the difference from there on. It's a *really* fantastic lens. I use it at f/1.4 or f/1.8 all the time for stage performances. Just shallow enough DOF to separate actors from background and lights (its flare-and-glare resistance is also outstanding, it will happily face a spotlight), wonderful color fidelity, good weight balance on my M6 classic that makes handholding at 1/8 or 1/15 a breeze. By far my favorite lens. Its main drawback is that it's a bit soft up close, within 6-8ft or so it benefits from being closed down a full stop.

When shooting shows I like to have the M6 and lux 35A around my neck, and Canon 1Ds2 with a modified Leica R 19 over the shoulder. APO-Summicron-R 90 in a PhotoRunner along with one other "effect" lens (usually a Fisheye or Helios 44-2, but I may also start carrying the nice small M42 SMC-Tak 50/1.4). The money shots are almost exclusively made with the M6+35.

I've attached a typical money shot (nothing exceptional, just plain newsprint and magazine fare), note how the lens is pointed right at an entire array of geled spotlights -- with absolutely zero flare!
 
Just a general remark,

if the only reason to buy gear is that the price will increase dramatically in a couple of weeks, then it's not wise to spend money. I doubt that these prices will remain at the higher level for long as the sales volume will no doubt collapse... This doodah about price increase may even be an attempt to get people to buy NOW...

Besides, although the current versions of the lenses may be better in terms of MTF or shooting resolution charts, they may have a different character that pleases you less than what you have..
 
Last edited:
If you shoot mainly indoors it might be a good idea to invest some money in the wide end, a 21 or if that is too specialized for your style of shooting, get a 28. (And this from somebody who has always sold on any 28 or 21 he aquired because I never used them :D )
 
sgy1962

In my view, you've already got good lens, the defference with the newer type of Leica Lens may be faster speed. If u really need F1.4, upgrade ur gears, otherwise not.

If it's a G.A.S problem, collect them all :D
 
I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to respond to my question. Every couple of years the "gear head" in me rears its head, and it takes a while to talk myself into or out of listening to it This time around, it seemed easier to listen what others had to say.

As often as not, I'm shooting my lenses wide open, and I have no qualms paying the extra money if there is a practical difference that you can actually see (coupled with need), as opposed to what laboratory type testing or MTF charts say. But if it is one of those things where you only going to see a difference if you blow a print up very large or look at a negative through a loupe, then, to me, I'll stick with what I have.

The last couple of rolls of film I've taken to my local developer in my new residence have looked terrible. How can you mess up C41 processing? I guess even "better" lenses won't compensate for bad developing. I may have to start mailing my film to a better developer, as I'm not in a position to do it myself.

Anyway, thanks again. I'll give everyone's thoughtful comments consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom