M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Your favourite 50/2 Summicron?
- Thread starter Bosk
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies: Replies 432
- Views: Views 5K
kevin m
Veteran
Did you mean to say "subtly different," because I could agree with that, or do you have any example images that clearly demonstrate those differences?
Bollocks. You've determined to buy a used Summicron 50 at your local camera shop, but when you pop in to pick it up, the price has spiked to $5,000.
How's that used Hexanon looking now?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
kevin m
Veteran
Really? A Summicron 50 and a Hexanon 50 produce images that are worlds apart?
What on earth are you talking about, and, again, do you have any examples to show the 'entirely different' looks of these two lenses?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
kevin m
Veteran
So when pressed for evidence to back up your bold claim, you resort to an ad-hominem retort?
You said the lenses are "entirely different" and "worlds apart." Sounds like we're comparing a scratched-up Summar with a brand new Aspherical Summilux 50 rather than two lenses which are, in point of fact, more alike than not.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'll keep my eye open. They are relatively hard to find; those of us who use it don't let go, try as we mayvisiondr said:
raid
Dad Photographer
Not to annoy anyone here, but in the end it is the person using "that" Summicron who is best utilizing the lens to arrive at great images. May we all be happy with our lenses.
Raid
Raid
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
Crasis
Well-known
kevin m said:So when pressed for evidence to back up your bold claim, you resort to an ad-hominem retort?
Sir, after reading through the responses given by Magus, I have come to the conclusion that he did not engage in an ad hominem attack.
Want to see a proper ad hominem retort? You lack the logical consistency and understanding of a simple latin phrase. I daresay that your inability to understand this phrase, coupled with your argumentative tone, indicates to me that you are ill equipped to handle this discussion. This makes me question the worth of your other claims when it comes to lenses.
Magus did not attack you in such a way. If anything, he sought to bring the conversation back to a conversation from the barely hidden testosterone filled posturing that came before. I have no such qualms. Let it all fly.
kevin m
Veteran
See post #49, page 5. There's my example from a Hexnon 50 wide-open. Please point out how that lens is 'radically different' from the signature a 50 Summicron provides.
Better yet, tomorrow, I'll post pics from both lenses, (yes, I used to own the Summicron) and you can tell us which pic was shot with which lens. Should be easy for you since they're "worlds apart," right?
Nothing personal, but for information to be worthwhile it has to be challenged, don't you think? :angel:
Sparrow
Veteran
Crasis said:
Oddly I read through and came to the opposite conclusion! Strange thing opinion!!
Flyfisher Tom
Well-known
Stewart is right, this is all highly subjective and there is really no point in arguing about it.
Kevin and Magus are both good gents, let's just leave each man to his own lenses. I'm sure they would both be laughing about this if they were sharing a beer face to face Lots of tone and nuance can be misconstrued in communicating online.
FWIW, I've used both the summicron and the hexanon-m, and I think both are stellar.
Now, where is my delicious pumpkin pie ???
Kevin and Magus are both good gents, let's just leave each man to his own lenses. I'm sure they would both be laughing about this if they were sharing a beer face to face
Lots of tone and nuance can be misconstrued in communicating online.FWIW, I've used both the summicron and the hexanon-m, and I think both are stellar.
Now, where is my delicious pumpkin pie ???
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Flyfisher Tom said:Now, where is my delicious pumpkin pie ???
Apple, Tom! Apple pie! telenous
Well-known
I followed earlier this morning this thread and I wanted to say something before it descended into another optics war. Too late, I guess. Perhaps I should get my lazy a** around to complete the M-mount group in flickr, where it will be possible to post photos from every M-mount lens available to humanity, for the viewing pleasure of all rangefinder aficionados. Images will speak louder than words, one hopes.
I was touched when I read Tom's post above. It has the bonhomie and gentility that characterises older RFFers. This is similar to the attitude that I have learned to respect from other chaps like...well, I will not mention names because I will forget someone and that's something I don't want to do.
They must look upon us like young Turks (just an expression, no offense to any Turk -esp. coming from a Greek), easy to draw the swords, easy to draw some blood, and all for battles that have been fought, and lost, again and again and again. It all looks so much in vain if you 've seen it more than a few a times.
Well, let me say this anyhow: This is the first time where the disagreement is not on whether there is a difference about the drawing of a lens. No, there is agreement on that. The disagreement is on how much of a difference there is. Is it just a tiny little bit? Perhaps more than just a little bit? Is it medium, like a medium size pizza (enough to make you think that you have eaten pizza, not enough to satiate your craving for more)? Is it more than that? Earth-shutteringly more than that?
What strikes me the most, is that it is generally easier (I say easier, not easy) to establish (observationally) the existence of an aspect where two things differ (or, for that matter, resemble each other) than to establish the exact degree of difference (or resemblance). Difference or resemblance are pretheoretical notions, forever anchored to our grasp of the properties that constitute our world. Degrees of difference (or resemblance) are theoretical constructs, ones we use with constructed scales and measures, in an 'after the fact' fashion. Are our scales totally arbitrary? Well, from where I stand they do look conventional. A factual discussion about degrees etc. can be had only after we have agreed on these conventions. So, while it will always be 'easy' to say that there is a difference between A and B, it will always be a matter of what scale we use, when we end up saying (and agreeing) that A differs very much or very little from B.
I am saying all that because the discussion strikes me as metaphysical rather than photographic in nature. Perhaps the wine I just had also helped. It makes disagreements over optics seem very small. But not so small that I would exchange a Lux 50 Asph. for a scratched Summar
I was touched when I read Tom's post above. It has the bonhomie and gentility that characterises older RFFers. This is similar to the attitude that I have learned to respect from other chaps like...well, I will not mention names because I will forget someone and that's something I don't want to do.
They must look upon us like young Turks (just an expression, no offense to any Turk -esp. coming from a Greek), easy to draw the swords, easy to draw some blood, and all for battles that have been fought, and lost, again and again and again. It all looks so much in vain if you 've seen it more than a few a times.
Well, let me say this anyhow: This is the first time where the disagreement is not on whether there is a difference about the drawing of a lens. No, there is agreement on that. The disagreement is on how much of a difference there is. Is it just a tiny little bit? Perhaps more than just a little bit? Is it medium, like a medium size pizza (enough to make you think that you have eaten pizza, not enough to satiate your craving for more)? Is it more than that? Earth-shutteringly more than that?
What strikes me the most, is that it is generally easier (I say easier, not easy) to establish (observationally) the existence of an aspect where two things differ (or, for that matter, resemble each other) than to establish the exact degree of difference (or resemblance). Difference or resemblance are pretheoretical notions, forever anchored to our grasp of the properties that constitute our world. Degrees of difference (or resemblance) are theoretical constructs, ones we use with constructed scales and measures, in an 'after the fact' fashion. Are our scales totally arbitrary? Well, from where I stand they do look conventional. A factual discussion about degrees etc. can be had only after we have agreed on these conventions. So, while it will always be 'easy' to say that there is a difference between A and B, it will always be a matter of what scale we use, when we end up saying (and agreeing) that A differs very much or very little from B.
I am saying all that because the discussion strikes me as metaphysical rather than photographic in nature. Perhaps the wine I just had also helped. It makes disagreements over optics seem very small. But not so small that I would exchange a Lux 50 Asph. for a scratched Summar
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I'd vote for the DR Summicron if I were "qualified", i.e. had experience with more than that lens. I just know I really, really liked it when I had it. I used both in "normal" and close focus range to good effect.
I've seen Hex photos that I really, really like and see as "significantly" different than Summicrons. Whether it is subtle or worlds apart, I don't give a rats arse. If it catches my eye, it's significant to me, and that's all that counts in my world!
My pie was bourbon-pecan. Worlds apart from apple or pumpkin.
I've seen Hex photos that I really, really like and see as "significantly" different than Summicrons. Whether it is subtle or worlds apart, I don't give a rats arse. If it catches my eye, it's significant to me, and that's all that counts in my world!
My pie was bourbon-pecan. Worlds apart from apple or pumpkin.
dreamsandart
Well-known
Kind of late in the discussion here but thought I'd add my Summicron idea.
I started out with a DR Summicron as my first Leica lens for my first Leica. The close-focus feature was nice and the built quality is superb, over-all everything you could want in a Leica 'standard' lens.
But its not that often that I 'plan' a close under 1 meter exposure, and in practical use I just didn't like to carry an extra part like the goggles and go through the set-up, close focus just happens for me most of the time getting to 1 meter and needing that bit extra rather than backing away.
Next was the weight thing. It a heavy brass mount, beautiful and extremely solid, but makes the lens not something you drop in your pocket without thinking about the stitching of your pocket.
For those 2 reasons and a couple other advantages I switched to the next Summicron version; the '69' or 11817. It focuses to .7 meter (enough), has a well made, very durable light weight mount ( never feel I should leave it behind because of weight issues ), mechanics are very smooth still after 30+ years of use, and optically I like the higher contrast than the earlier versions but it still retains a 'classic' Leica look. Its not as pretty as the chrome mount lenses of the 50s/60s, but in this case I can live with it because it does everything else so well.
Leica are sure fun with all the choices: Leitz, Leica or non-Leica
I started out with a DR Summicron as my first Leica lens for my first Leica. The close-focus feature was nice and the built quality is superb, over-all everything you could want in a Leica 'standard' lens.
But its not that often that I 'plan' a close under 1 meter exposure, and in practical use I just didn't like to carry an extra part like the goggles and go through the set-up, close focus just happens for me most of the time getting to 1 meter and needing that bit extra rather than backing away.
Next was the weight thing. It a heavy brass mount, beautiful and extremely solid, but makes the lens not something you drop in your pocket without thinking about the stitching of your pocket.
For those 2 reasons and a couple other advantages I switched to the next Summicron version; the '69' or 11817. It focuses to .7 meter (enough), has a well made, very durable light weight mount ( never feel I should leave it behind because of weight issues ), mechanics are very smooth still after 30+ years of use, and optically I like the higher contrast than the earlier versions but it still retains a 'classic' Leica look. Its not as pretty as the chrome mount lenses of the 50s/60s, but in this case I can live with it because it does everything else so well.
Leica are sure fun with all the choices: Leitz, Leica or non-Leica
retrocam
Too many 50mms
My only Summicron is the chrome Summicron with built-in hood. So, that's my favorite Summicron.
kevin m
Veteran
I agree. I even agree that the Summicron and Hexanon draw somewhat differently. But, c'mon:
How can an assertion like this go unchallenged?
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited: