Differences between Summicron, Summilux, Elmarit Lenses

[bill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

NX--

You seem to have some knowledge to offer. Why don't you quit hiding behind idiosyncratic terms and abbreviations?

 

It is also generally considered good practice to include a reference when introducing new ideas.

 

In general, on this forum knowledge is more respected than pomposity.

 

Howard, what on Earth are you on about? That all seemed clear to me, and hardly pompous compared to some "contributions".

 

I'm astounded by the way that you have never come across the term "Barnack" - do you not look around the forum? Have you not come across the Barnack Challenge?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lct]

As I read Andy's link, it's the only lens for the set that was made in Germany.

I don't know Howard. According to Zeiss themselves, Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax were made in Japan. See: Camera Lens News, March 1998. Now perhaps the Hologon 16/8 was an exception.

[giordano]

The Hologon is two menisci surrounding an Abbe eyepiece, or that is how you can visualize how Glatzel derived it.

 

The Abbe eye piece started out at a solid cylinder of glass, both ends have deep convex curves ground and the middle is waisted like a wasp, to form a fixed stop. Glatzel then surrounded this with two deep menisci to get a wide angle lens. Then the design team would have spend ages ray tracing etc...

 

This is a brief explanation please ask if you ned more.

 

More please. The only illustrations I can find that purport to be of "Abbé eyepieces" show a 3-element symmetrical cemented group (biconvex-biconcave-biconvex) followed by a single planoconvex element. I simply cannot work out how that can have evolved from anything remotely like the central element of the 8/15mm Hologon, or why the narrow "waist" would be an advantage in a lens for an eyepiece. Can you point to some sources?

 

And your response to the question about your term "loupe style eyepiece" leaves me baffled. Where I come from, a loupe is either a high-power magnifying glass or a pair of close-up telescopes (Galileian or Keplerian), mounted on a headband or spectacle frame. Again, please clarify.

[adan]

On the question of where Contax (Japan) lenses were made - Zeiss always retained the making of some of the lenses in both the SLR and G lines in Germany. Originally, a great many of the lenses for the RTS system were marked made in Germany, but manufacture transitioned to a Zeiss-managed plant in Japan around (very roughly) 1980, because, according to Zeiss, most of the market was in Japan. So one can find both "German" and Japan" 180 f/2.8's, 25 f/2.8s, etc. depending on age.

 

But exotic or low-production RTS lenses were always made in Oberkochen - 300 f/2.8, 85 f/1.2 and the 15mm f/3.5 Distagon (the same lens was also made in R-mount for Leica as the f/3.5 15mm Super-Elmar). Similarly, Zeiss still makes the 15 f/2.8 Distagon and 85 f/2 Sonnar of the ZM line in Germany, although all the other ZM lenses are Cosina-built.

____________________

 

On the question of "loupe-eyepieces" - to me it seems a distinction without a diference. View-camera photographers have used loupes for focusing on the ground glass for years. I don't see that that is any different from using an SLR eyepiece to see a 35mm ground-glass magnified, or using a chimney finder on a Hassy, Nikon F, or Visoflex. They are all "loupes"- only they are being used to magnify and view a 6x6 or 35mm ground-glass instead of a 6x6 or 35mm piece of film.

[ho_co]

Andy, no question about 'loupe eyepieces.'

 

The thing that I (and perhaps John) can't understand is the clause

... Both lenses [15mm & 16mm--HC] are a pair of meniscus either side of 'loupe style eyepiece', ...

[ho_co]

... Have you not come across the Barnack Challenge? ...

 

Red herring, Bill, but I appreciate your interest.

 

In truth, having little photographic talent, I haven't paid much attention to the Barnack Challenge. Is it restricted only to screw-mount equipment?

[Xmas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More please. The only illustrations I can find that purport to be of "Abbé eyepieces" show a 3-element symmetrical cemented group (biconvex-biconcave-biconvex) followed by a single planoconvex element. I simply cannot work out how that can have evolved from anything remotely like the central element of the 8/15mm Hologon, or why the narrow "waist" would be an advantage in a lens for an eyepiece. Can you point to some sources?

 

And your response to the question about your term "loupe style eyepiece" leaves me baffled. Where I come from, a loupe is either a high-power magnifying glass or a pair of close-up telescopes (Galileian or Keplerian), mounted on a headband or spectacle frame. Again, please clarify.

 

 

 

I'll do the eyepiece/loupe bit first

 

If we consider a 6x6 TLR and 35mm SLR as examples, the image of the subject on the ground glass screen, is focused with the aid of a flip up magnifying glass, in the TLR, the SLR (penta prism) has a lower power magnifier that allows the whole screen to be seen. Telescopes are the same the high magnification eyepieces dont offer as large field of view, as a lower magnification system.

 

The magnification aid in 6x6 TLR hood is just a magnifying glass, but it only covers the central spot (in mine), the view finder in a 35mm SLR is an eye piece because it is wide® angle of view, you see the whole frame, however the optic is only a more complex magnifier. They are both the same sort of 'lens' i.e. convergent.

 

The Abbe eyepiece you reference is a highly corrected wide angle eyepiece.

 

The central element of the 15mm Hologon is similar to one of the high powered loupe designs from the 19th century which I think is also attrbuted to Abbe, not found a reference yet. The highy curved surfaces give it a high power the 'waist' stop reduces abberations. These solid glass designs are still used as a high power eyepiece, e.g. with three cemented glasses to colour correct when a wide angle of view is not reqired, but high magnification is, (similarly you can get three glass loupes), see link at end for a crosssection of similar eye piece - note two physical stops.

 

Glatzel did not colour correct the inner element in the 15mm as the Hologon colour correction is done similar to an Elmar by the separation between the three elements and different glass dispersions between the inner and two outers.

 

Note confused by the query about Hologon, the 15mm has a central element, surrounded by two outer elements, they are very thick meniscus, it is a three element lens?

 

Hope this helps, try again if it does not, I'll be intermittently off line all weekend, from now.

 

TMB Monocentric Eyepiece

[Xmas]

Red herring, Bill, but I appreciate your interest.

 

In truth, having little photographic talent, I haven't paid much attention to the Barnack Challenge. Is it restricted only to screw-mount equipment?

 

Thanks Bill, must be worth a pint.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

On the question of where Contax (Japan) lenses were made - Zeiss always retained the making of some of the lenses in both the SLR and G lines in Germany. Originally, a great many of the lenses for the RTS system were marked made in Germany, but manufacture transitioned to a Zeiss-managed plant in Japan around (very roughly) 1980, because, according to Zeiss, most of the market was in Japan. So one can find both "German" and Japan" 180 f/2.8's, 25 f/2.8s, etc. depending on age.

 

But exotic or low-production RTS lenses were always made in Oberkochen - 300 f/2.8, 85 f/1.2 and the 15mm f/3.5 Distagon (the same lens was also made in R-mount for Leica as the f/3.5 15mm Super-Elmar). Similarly, Zeiss still makes the 15 f/2.8 Distagon and 85 f/2 Sonnar of the ZM line in Germany, although all the other ZM lenses are Cosina-built.

____________________

 

On the question of "loupe-eyepieces" - to me it seems a distinction without a diference. View-camera photographers have used loupes for focusing on the ground glass for years. I don't see that that is any different from using an SLR eyepiece to see a 35mm ground-glass magnified, or using a chimney finder on a Hassy, Nikon F, or Visoflex. They are all "loupes"- only they are being used to magnify and view a 6x6 or 35mm ground-glass instead of a 6x6 or 35mm piece of film.

Hi Andy

 

I've tried to explain the angle of view difference, it is probably not obvious unless you have some optical back ground.

 

Noel

[Xmas]

NX--

You seem to have some knowledge to offer. Why don't you quit hiding behind idiosyncratic terms and abbreviations?

 

It is also generally considered good practice to include a reference when introducing new ideas.

 

In general, on this forum knowledge is more respected than pomposity.

 

 

According to Andy's link, the graduated filter for the Leica-M Hologon was made by Leitz.

 

Any idea whether that is accurate? The Zeiss filter for the camera seems almost identical to the one for the M version.

 

There's at least one factual error in the data on that page, viz "The internal filter thread has also been eliminated."

 

Hi Howard

 

I'd seen the article linked by Andy.

 

I had been told that Zeiss killed the Contarex SLR series together with the Hologon stand alone camera.

 

I think the Hologon camera accepted some Contarex accessories like the removable back and the interchangeable backs, the linked article says this too, but there were lots of other common parts, i.e. it was a Contarex SLR but without the SLR mirror box assembly.so it was dependent on Contarex production line so it had to die, with the SLR.

 

This left Zeiss with lots of piece parts e.g. a number of Hologon lens sets which they then remaindered to Leitz, i.e more normally Zeiss would not have sold a lens to Leitz a cut throat competitor, to mark up and make a profit on, - compare with the ZM camera and lenses today. Then (1972) they were getting out of top range cameras so the piece parts were scrap otherwise.

 

I have no information on how Leitz adapted the lens to the M, i.e. was it Zeiss or Leitz that did the helicoid. It is said there is a person in Ja who will alter your 16mm Hologon to have a LTM mount. A 16mm Hologon shold not be (as) expensive, as a 15mm M Hologon, if you wanted a M Hologon.

 

The 15mm M Hologon appeared in the 1974 Leitz short catalogue, that is the only catalogue I have, it might have been in '73 catalogue as well.

 

I can't answer Hologon 15mm specific queries as I only have the 16mm Hologon. In 74 although the 15mm was in the catalogue, getting one seemed rather difficult, and it was not cheap either.

 

I can tell you why the Zeiss camera had the pistol grip, it is nearly impossible for the G1 or G2 Hologon to not photograph your fingers... This is also the reason why they needed a separate camera the Hologon in the Contarex SLR would have photographed the lens mount internals, it only just clears the G1/G2 or M, shorter back focus.

 

The grad filter is only really necessary with color film or wet print monochrome, the filter sometimes give iris images when the sun is in the frame, which it is most of the time, the 16mm lens is flare and iris image free otherwise.

 

Noel

[giordano]

Hope this helps, try again if it does not,

 

Thanks, that makes things a lot clearer.

 

You're right about the Hologon camera being a Contarex (Super?) without the mirror box, and about the finger problem. BTW, many years ago in Richard Caplan's window I saw a Nikon F that had had a Hologon and its finder grafted in, presumably after problems with the Contarex shutter in the original camera.

[batmobile]

In response to the OP, now that speed is covered, my personal view is that if you do not need the speed, or the OOF effects of the faster luxes you are wasting your money. If you are shooting landscapes stopped down, why on earth buy a Lux? So in essence, if you need the speed, or the OOF, they are worth it because you have no choice. If you do't need it, why pay for it. If anything slower lenses have a tendency to be optically stronger at comparable apertures when compared to fast lenses.

[lars_bergquist]

Agree completely. Cameras, and lenses, are tools for distinct purposes. For instance, the 50mm Summilux ASPH is about as good wide open, as the Summicron wide open, or the Summarit, wide open -- which is miraculous. But all are very comparable at f:4. So if you do not need all that speed, why pay for it? Analyse your factual needs -- and sort them out carefully from your emotional wishes. Make the distinction between the image, and your self-image.

 

The 'need' may, of course, be to improve your self-image ... But considering that you are adressing an audience of one (how many passers-by will understand what that Noctilux you are lugging around, is and costs?) the price may well be excessive.

 

The old man from the Box Camera Age

[lct]

...slower lenses have a tendency to be optically stronger at comparable apertures when compared to fast lenses.

Not really my feeling with Leica lenses. My f/1.4 lenses are better at f/2 than my f/2 lenses and the latters are better at f/2.8 than my f/2.8's. Not your experience as well?

[ho_co]

... I think the Hologon camera accepted some Contarex accessories like the removable back and the interchangeable backs ...

Correct. The removable back was the same, the interchangeable backs were the same, and the Zeiss Contarex (and Contaflex(!)) cassettes were the same.

 

They had some great lenses and a fascinating concept with the Contarex system. Brilliant idea to speed up film changes by feeding cassette to cassette, eliminating rewinding; and the interchangeable backs carried that a step further.

 

I knew only one pro with a Contarex system, including the Hologon, of course. The only shot I'm aware of him taking with the Hologon was a shot of four electric meters side by side. His client wanted to know how all four meters read at exactly the same time.

[ho_co]

... I can tell you why the Zeiss camera had the pistol grip, it is nearly impossible for the G1 or G2 Hologon to not photograph your fingers....

That's the argument I always heard for the Hologon, but I never had that trouble and found the camera easier to use without the grip, which was distinctly uncomfortable IMHO.

 

 

... This is also the reason why they needed a separate camera the Hologon in the Contarex SLR would have photographed the lens mount internals....

Did the Contarex have mirror lock-up? I remember that it lacked a quick-return mirror, so a lot of mechanics would have had to be changed to mount the Hologon. Remember also that the Hologon body doesn't have the trapezoidal wedge into which the diaphragm stop-down couplings of the Contarex were built.

 

I think they built the Hologon body because--like so much on the Contarex, and on the Contax before it--they had built themselves into a hole.

 

Example: Remember the diaphragm-compensated Macro Planar? It was a technically brilliant and complex design that became a hindrance when the meter entered the mirror cavity.

 

When Zeiss put a spot meter into the body (before the Leicaflex SL, I think), they had to offer the lens in a de-compensated version since the metering now saw the extension-produced light transmission reduction.

[giordano]

They had some great lenses and a fascinating concept with the Contarex system. Brilliant idea to speed up film changes by feeding cassette to cassette, eliminating rewinding; and the interchangeable backs carried that a step further.

 

From my limited experience with the old Contax, it takes *longer* to change films if you're running them cassette to cassette, and it's much simpler just to use an open takeup spool and rewind into the original cassette in the usual way.

 

1) wind to end of roll

2) remove camera back

3) remove full cassette from the right hand side and put it in a safe place

4) remove empty cassette from the left hand side, release the safety catch and rotate the two parts of it to reveal the spool

5) inspect the cassette for any fragments of film or tape left when the end of the film pulled off the spool during (1), and remove them if necessary

6) find the cassette with the new film and the trimmed leader to fit the slit in the spool in the empty cassette

7) insert the leader into the slot in the cassette and make sure it's engaged in the spool

8) close the cassette

9) insert the two cassettes into the camera, making sure the film between them is correctly placed on the film rails and that the perforations engage with the sprocket

10) replace the back and wind on, making sure that the rewind knob is turning.

 

The only way it saves time is if you have enough cassettes to do items 4 to 8 in advance, so each spare film you carry is ready-threaded between two cassettes.

 

IME the only real benefit of cassette-to-cassette loading is that you can open the camera mid-roll, cut the film, and develop the exposed portion right away without wasting the unexposed part.

[ho_co]

... I'm astounded by the way that you have never come across the term "Barnack"

Bill--

The problem I mentioned isn't with what you call "the term 'Barnack,'" but with using the name "Barnack" to designate a class.

 

We distinguish "cars" from "trucks" (US English).

We distinguish "bayonet mounts" from "screw mounts."

What is NX's class of "Barnacks" to be distinguished from?

 

... and early Leitz lenses for the Barnacks ...

Is he referring to lenses made for Oskar and the members of his family? The only thing I can think he means is "screw-mount Leicas."

 

As I said before, I'm unfamiliar with what seems to me an idiosyncratic usage of the name. Please enlighten me! Show me where the name "Barnack" is commonly used to designate a class, eh?

[ho_co]

From my limited experience with the old Contax, it takes *longer* to change films if you're running them cassette to cassette....

Agreed. And don't forget the time you had to take bulk-loading in the first place.

 

But then by the time I had my go with it, the idea of bulk-loading was already rather quirky.

 

I think you're right that being able to hand off the shot film and keep shooting the remainder of the roll is definitely the greater advantage.

 

 

 

Ah, where's that Exakta with the built-in knife to simplify even that process?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Xmas]

That's the argument I always heard for the Hologon, but I never had that trouble and found the camera easier to use without the grip, which was distinctly uncomfortable IMHO.

 

 

 

Did the Contarex have mirror lock-up? I remember that it lacked a quick-return mirror, so a lot of mechanics would have had to be changed to mount the Hologon. Remember also that the Hologon body doesn't have the trapezoidal wedge into which the diaphragm stop-down couplings of the Contarex were built.

 

I think they built the Hologon body because--like so much on the Contarex, and on the Contax before it--they had built themselves into a hole.

 

Example: Remember the diaphragm-compensated Macro Planar? It was a technically brilliant and complex design that became a hindrance when the meter entered the mirror cavity.

 

When Zeiss put a spot meter into the body (before the Leicaflex SL, I think), they had to offer the lens in a de-compensated version since the metering now saw the extension-produced light transmission reduction.

Hi Howard

 

I accept that the grip is subjective thing, but I get a lot of pink things on the edges of the frame, with the G1 and Hologon, a Leica large Ball&Socket and mini tripod as brace is what I have to use, to avoid the 'flying pig' problems..

 

I don't understand you reviews of mirror lock up options, when Gatzel designed the Hologon its front nodal point was to close to film plane to allow use of the Contarex mount, he had 'painted himself into a corner' and needed a shorter registration. The M 28.8mm registration is only just small enough.

 

I'm impressed you have touched the 15mm camera.

 

Lastly you comments on the use of Barnack(s) may mean you live in a sheltered cloister, as the term has been used for some time as a poignant class name for the LTM cameras, protesting that languages should not change is so deffo passé, e.g. as Bill the ogre kindly points out one of our sub fora has adapted the title.

 

Barnack = LTM camera

new fangled = M camera

 

Noel

P.S. deffo is Liverpool slang - for defiantly