Messsucherkamera Posted February 25, 2012 Share #41 Â Posted February 25, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Every Noctilux that was made before the 0.95 ASPH is a bad lens, according to some. Â Not in my view, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 25, 2012 Posted February 25, 2012 Hi Messsucherkamera, Take a look here Has Leica ever make a bad lens?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
colorado Posted March 7, 2012 Share #42 Â Posted March 7, 2012 The 50mm Summar had an indifferent reputation because it was up against the 50 mm f2 Zeiss Sonnar fitted to the Contax.Apparently the Sonnar gave a higher contrast image and this may have accounted for the difference.From what I have read Zeiss did not have a good 50mm f2 design and so did what many camera manufacturers did -they went to another manufacturer an d arranged to make the other firm's lens under licence and put their own name on it. The 50 mm f2 Zeiss Sponnar of 1932 was the 2 inch f2 Speed Panchro from Taylor Taylor and Hobson, which in its native form was fitted to the Reid 35mm camera.The Contax was introduced in 1932 and Zeiss knew it might take some years to develop their own design-there were no computers then! The reason the Contax did not completely outsell the then current Leica was that Zeiss had fitted the camera with their own mechanically complex shutter which was less reliable than the rolller blind shutter of the Leica.Erwin Puts,Brian Bower and old editions or Amateur Photographer magazine give quite a lot of information about these topics. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â t Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wizard Posted March 8, 2012 Share #43  Posted March 8, 2012 ... The 3.5/3.5cm Elmar may be nice to look at and deliver acceptable results in the center, but if you look at the corners....  ...  I have to strongly disagree (and no, as evidenced by the quote above, you did not refer to the 2.8/5cm Elmar). My red scale Elmar, in any case when stopped down to f5.6 or more, does produce very sharp images even in the corner region. Of course, a Summilux 50 asph is better, but the images taken with the Elmar are by no means soft.  Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted March 8, 2012 Share #44 Â Posted March 8, 2012 Sorry, I was talking about the 3,5cm/ 35mm Elmar, wide angle, not about the 5cm/50mm standard Elmar. Your may read my comment about the standard Elmar above: the classical 3.5 version was good, the first version with f/2.8 was not as good - up to anyone if one calls it a "bad" lens or a notsogoodastheclassicalElmarlens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #45 Â Posted March 9, 2012 The R 21/4 is not great to be honest. Neither is the R 24/2.8 or the R 35-70/3.5 (Minolta). But "bad" Ms are rather rare. The Summar 50/2 perhaps? Â Huh? Are you kidding? The 21 f/4 Super-Angulon-R is stunning in the center, and not bad overall for a lens of its vintage. I just purchased my fourth copy a year ago. (The lens is a Schneider design, if that matters.) Â I did purchase the 19mm Elmarit-R right after it came out, in 1975, but I ended up going back to the SA. The 19mm vignetted more than the 21 for starters, and the corners were not so hot. Overall I preferred the SA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted March 9, 2012 Share #46 Â Posted March 9, 2012 Huh? Are you kidding? The 21 f/4 Super-Angulon-R is stunning in the center, and not bad overall for a lens of its vintage... I used to like it in the past to be honest but it's become my worst 21 to say the truth. It vignettes so much that the viewfinder is as dim as with a f/5.6 lens on my 5D1 and its overall results are inferior to both my Elmarit 21/2.8 asph and CV 21/4. I would rather reserve the word stunning for my little Zuiko 21/2 of same vintage that i find so much better in anything else than bokeh that i don't use the SA any more on my 5D1 i must say. Nice looking lens though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #47 Â Posted March 9, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) I used to like it in the past to be honest but it's become my worst 21 to say the truth. It vignettes so much that the viewfinder is as dim as with a f/5.6 lens on my 5D1 and its overall results are inferior to both my Elmarit 21/2.8 asph and CV 21/4. I would rather reserve the word stunning for my little Zuiko 21/2 of same vintage that i find so much better in anything else than bokeh that i don't use the SA any more on my 5D1 i must say. Nice looking lens though. Â Well of course the new 19mm is a better lens; the first one, in my opinion, was a bit of a let-down (I sold it and got another 21mm SA). And the Zuiko is not bad, but the tonal quality of the 21mm SA is in my opinion excellent. I was not saying it was state of the art, but I object to anyone calling it a 'bad' lens. It's not, by any stretch of the imagination. I am not aware of any significant vignetting problem with it. The first 19mm had a little bit more contrast but the lens overall disappointed me. I have not used the second version, and am not really likely to, simply because of cost and the fact that I don't use wide-angle as much as long lenses these days. Â Here is a review of it: http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/leica-lenses/leica-wide-angle/680-leica-super-angulon-r-21mm-f4-s85-lens-review Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted March 9, 2012 Share #48  Posted March 9, 2012 Makes me sad to read that a lens I have been using for over 40 years is considered less than enthusiastically. The 50/2.8 Elmar was the 50 I bought with my M3 and although later I bought Summicron and now Summilux I still like it. I swopped the M mount one for a screw mount a few years ago and it sees regular use on the lll. I did a few tests years ago and it was miles better than a Xenar on a Retina, and a Tessar on a Contina. For a long while I used it an enlarger lens and it was better than Schneider, Rodenstock and Nikkor 50/2.8s  Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UliWer Posted March 9, 2012 Share #49  Posted March 9, 2012 O.k.; I give over and shall forthwith call the 2.8/5cm Elmar (1. version) a  "not in anyway bad but not quite as enthusiastically as the 3.5/5cm classical Elmar considered lens". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJP Posted March 9, 2012 Share #50 Â Posted March 9, 2012 mmmmmm, this sounds overly optimistic, maybe you need to formulate your opinion more carefully:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 9, 2012 Share #51  Posted March 9, 2012 I'm writing this after reading the How we decide between this and that? thread. Mentions of lens signatures reminds me of how one might describe the flavor of a wine - arcane, insider jargon that actually seems to work. We have no such vocabulary. And a few of us have dull taste buds (myself, for example). Perhaps some of us have rather undiscriminating vision or visual sophistication, or lack of experience.  May I start with an extreme - has Leica ever made a bad lens? If so, which one(s) and how would you describe it? We are concerned here with 'as new' condition.  (Aside - I broke my V2 Summilux 35mm in the accident and replaced it with a used one and it hasn't the same look as my old one. I fear I'm going on a spending marathon to find a replacement, or spend a few days in Chicago trying some at dealers - if they have any.)  Well optical science keeps improving. It's simply unfair to compare lenses made in the 40s and 50s with more modern lenses. The fact that Leica keeps improving their products shows that they care. There are many Leica lenses that have several versions, each better than the last. At any given point in time, Leica lenses of a certain vintage are the equal or better of any other brands of the same vintage, and usually the better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted March 10, 2012 Share #52 Â Posted March 10, 2012 Leica was - challenged - in coming to grips with retrofocus lenses 1965-1975 (wides for the R and wides that allowed metering on the M). The first of each were among their weakest: 35 Elmarit-R (1964) and 28 Elmarit for M (version 2, 1972); very soft and streaky in the corners. Both lenses were revised, with some improvement for the 35 R and a big improvement for the 28 M. Â As mentioned, Leica had to farm out the design of the 21 f/4 R to Schneider, who had more experience with wide lenses. The 21 M f/2.8 (1980) was their first in-house 21, and still a bit weak in the corners at wide apertures, as was the first 19R f/2.8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ornello Posted March 10, 2012 Share #53  Posted March 10, 2012 Leica was - challenged - in coming to grips with retrofocus lenses 1965-1975 (wides for the R and wides that allowed metering on the M). The first of each were among their weakest: 35 Elmarit-R (1964) and 28 Elmarit for M (version 2, 1972); very soft and streaky in the corners. Both lenses were revised, with some improvement for the 35 R and a big improvement for the 28 M. As mentioned, Leica had to farm out the design of the 21 f/4 R to Schneider, who had more experience with wide lenses. The 21 M f/2.8 (1980) was their first in-house 21, and still a bit weak in the corners at wide apertures, as was the first 19R f/2.8.  I had the opportunity to use the Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 of the same vintage, and the Leica/Schneider is a much better lens. The lenses came out with a couple years of one another. The 19mm Elmarit, which came out in 1975, is faster but overall a disappointment. I owned both lenses, the 21 SA and 19 Elmarit-R, and much prefer the former. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted March 10, 2012 Share #54  Posted March 10, 2012 O.k.; I give over and shall forthwith call the 2.8/5cm Elmar (1. version) a  "not in anyway bad but not quite as enthusiastically as the 3.5/5cm classical Elmar considered lens".  I'm sorry if my post came out as critical, it wasn't meant. I don't quarrel with the relative qualities you mentioned, I know the Summicron 50 is better than my Elmar 2.8, and my Elmar 3.5 is very impressive although as its uncoated its not easy to isolate areas in which it is better from those where its very different from the coated lenses. Its significant I think that in spite of its limitations the 2.8 is not 'bad' lens, and is substantially better than contemporaries of similar design.  Gerry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 10, 2012 Share #55 Â Posted March 10, 2012 Yes the 28's were not outstanding in comparison to other brands and the 21 Elmarit M had something ugly about it (on film) imho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveYork Posted March 10, 2012 Share #56 Â Posted March 10, 2012 The first 35mm Elmarit R is said to be 'so, so,' as is the 180mm Elmar, but that was size/weight considerations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2012 Share #57 Â Posted March 10, 2012 Yes the 28's were not outstanding in comparison to other brands and the 21 Elmarit M had something ugly about it (on film) imhoWhat 28 s? :confused:The Elmarits were quite good, with the Elmarit R last version excellent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 10, 2012 Author Share #58 Â Posted March 10, 2012 Well optical science keeps improving. It's simply unfair to compare lenses made in the 40s and 50s with more modern lenses. The fact that Leica keeps improving their products shows that they care. There are many Leica lenses that have several versions, each better than the last. At any given point in time, Leica lenses of a certain vintage are the equal or better of any other brands of the same vintage, and usually the better. Â I should make my motive for the question more clear. We (or I) have become accustomed to the descriptions of modern lens performance, and used some of the lenses, however my vocabulary for early Leica lenses is impoverished. This has been a helpful thread in every respect. Â I tried to relate it to my experience with descriptions of pre-1900 LF lenses some of which I am very fond. It appears that by the time Leitz began making lenses they had gone far beyond the 'flaws' we foster in those old lenses, some of which can have a profound glow wide-open and tack-sharpness stopped down. But that's an entirely different field and this thread has helped me understand that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 10, 2012 Share #59 Â Posted March 10, 2012 What 28 s? :confused:The Elmarits were quite good, with the Elmarit R last version excellent. Â Sorry the first 3 generations M 28's, the word first slipped me. Still IMHO , most Elmarit 28's including newer versions do not have a typical Leica fingerprint Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
machmaphoto Posted April 9, 2015 Share #60 Â Posted April 9, 2015 UP ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.