can anyone recommend a good old leica 50mm lens? I use the dual range but I have heard people talk about the older 50s {Screw mount} and they say hey have a quality all their own. Some use the uncoated ones. How are they for color?

-- jon harkness (harkness@wt.net), March 23, 2001

Answers

Jonathan Eastland in his book, "Leica M Compendium", extols the virtues of the old Summarit lens. He has a couple of side by side color photos with the Summarit and the Summicron shooting the same scene, as well as some stand alone Summarit shots in both color and black and white.

He comments on the slightly lower contrast as being an advantage for color slide work. I believe that there is some personal preference involved, because when I look at the shots, I can't help but to think how much better the shots would look if they had been shot with a sharper more contrasty lens. I wrote to Mr. Eastland and asked him about his preference, explaining my poor results with a pristine example of a late Summarit. He said he has a couple of them, neither is perfect, (cleaning marks), and he still feels it is one of the better designs. He also mentioned that he gets quite a few letters from people that don't like the lens, so it is not only my opinion.

I had an old chrome Summicron, (probably a similar vintage as your DR lens), which was too low in contrast for me... but it was light years ahead of the Summarit. Upon acquiring a new 1985 Summicron, I never looked back. It might be fun to play with an old lens, but I believe in my opinion, that you are holding one of the best of the "low- contrast" lenses now with your DR Summicron.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 23, 2001.

I've got to agree with Al here. I loved my DR 50 , and wouldn't have replaced it with the current design if the internal coatings hadn't started to go opaque on me. Now there's a VERY low contrast lens when the coatings go bad! A retired friend of mine who shot as a Pro back in the 1970's came across famous photographer Mr. Eisenstad (spelling?)one day in San Francisco. Eisenstad had adapted his old, brassy 3.5 screw mount Elmar to a newer Leica body, and that is what he was using for a shoot he was there for. He told my friend he just liked the look from that lens and I quess he knew it inside and out having shot with it for so many years. I have also thought about picking up an old (but coated)3.5 Elmar to have some fun with. I have used an uncoated one and it flared so easily it was very difficult to get anything good with it in bright light.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 23, 2001.

I recently purchased two of the special production Summicrons in screw mount that Leica introduced for my IIIg. At first I considered selling my old lenses (35 Summaron, 50 and 90 Elmars), but am glad I didn't. Though the old lenses are no match in sharpness (and I mean REALLY no match), in some instances the older lenses give a far more pleasing rendition of the scene I am shooting. The big problem of flare, sometimes works to make a photograph more dreamy and surrealist than the perfectly controlled image that results from the new lenses. If I could only own one set of lenses, it would definitely be the new ones, they are so good under most circumstances. But if you can recognize when the older lenses would give a nicer image, it's nice to have them around.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 23, 2001.

I wonder if stacking two or three uncoated filters in front of a more recent lens could emulate the effect of an uncoated or otherwise low contrast lens. I've wondered about it ever since I was tempted to buy a Summarit, but didn't feel like forking out $400 for it.

I've got a 52mm adapter for one of my Leica wide angles. There's nothing to stop me from stacking a few Tiffen UVA's on it and answering the question myself. I'll do that, but what do others think?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 23, 2001.

Bob, could you post an image that shows the "dreamy effect" you're talking about with the older lenses? The only time I usually like less than super sharp images are in some portraits. I guess looking back at some of our old family photos taken with uncoated Kodak Box cameras, there is look to the images where highlights smear out and corners are soft that is kind of attractive.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), March 25, 2001.