Just a brief chapter to keep things rolling while I catch up on printing from the weekend and address an issue that was raised earlier. Here are a couple of images not taken with the 75 Summilux, but with the Dual-Range Summicron. This particular example of the 50 DR has a '61 serial number and a big, ugly scuff right on the middle of the front lens element. Just so you know. A test which someone had mentioned (and which I'd thought of, as well) was to use different focal lengths but have the subject remain approximately the same size. In the first image, a minor amount has been cropped from the left side, with the top and bottom cropped to square. The image below is full frame. Compare to this photo and to this photo. The magnification of the subject is slightly higher in the 50 DR shots, which further accentuates the "up-close effect."

50 DR-Summicron (about f5.6)

-- Mike dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 20, 2002

Answers

Film was E100SW at EI 80 (processed normally). Incident meter (dome towards camera and out of direct sunlight). Window light as in the others in this series.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 20, 2002.

Beautiful Mike. I'm getting a little tired of paying you compliments. Seems like a great lens. What's it sell for these days? I think it was Glenn Travic who said he loves his DR and swears by it's performance. How is it wide open Mike?

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 20, 2002.

Well, I think they're ALL great... My own tastes prefer the first 50 DR shot to all the others. I like the composition in the lower 50 DR shot, but it appears a bit too soft, as I like the eyes to be crisp.

:-),

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), March 20, 2002.

The skin and sclera appear jaundiced, the highlights are burned out, and the eyes are not in sharp focus. Am I missing something?

-- Willhelmn (wmitch3400@hotmail.com), March 20, 2002.

Mike... I might sound ignorant here. The two shots on the clickable links are from what lens(es)? The 75mm? There is no specific reference.

Again, thanks for the effort.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), March 20, 2002.

Mike, please permit me, I really enjoyed your postings here, your images stands out from all the rest. There's are also a lots of good folks here who are very knowlegeable technically when it comes to Leica products who had helped me tremendously with my hobby. My just looking at those photographs inspires me. Please keep posting. REgards,

-- edgaddi (edgaddi@msn.com), March 20, 2002.

Thanks for the comments.

The picture links go to shots made with the 75 'Lux (I probably shouldn't post right before I go to bed).

I think good user DR Summicrons with close-up eyes can be had for about $500 or less. Mine is prone to flare in strongly-backlit conditions. Not sure exactly how wide-open performance compares to a new 50 Summicron, but I can't recall ever looking at a photo taken with the DR and thinking, "This would be better if the lens were sharper wide open.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 20, 2002.

i don't mean rain on your parade, Mike, but...

...the first photo is focused on the hair, not the eyes. the second one has a hint of camera shake or subject movement or even focus error (not sure), as the eyes look blurred to me (i have a 20/20 vision, fwiw)...

i guess you wanted to deliberately overexpose a bit (which is why you set the ISO to 80) but i think it you overdid it this time.

oh god please don't flame me...everyone's entitled to his opinion, right? if you don't agree please just ignore me; i'm just your average idiot.

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 20, 2002.

one more thing: don't get me wrong, i still love the photos...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 20, 2002.

Mike, I don't understand your point. The pictures directly on the thread look over-exposed, so it's hard to evaluate the DR lens quality. One of the pictures on the link you provide looks sharp and well exposed, but the other (? 75 mm lens) shows diffuse veiling glare. I don't know if any conclusions about the two lenses can be drawn from these images alone.

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), March 20, 2002.

Dexter, no need to cringe--I've weathered far worse criticism. I'm happy just taking the photos; I'll trust others to decided whether or not they like them (and why). . .

Eliot, the primary purpose of the comparison was to demonstrate the difference in perspective between the 50mm and 75mm focal lengths--from just under 2 feet away, the subject looks different than she does from just over 3 feet away. These results aren't meant to serve as a comparison between the general performance of the two lenses.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), March 20, 2002.

yummmmmm

I certainly have to say it is the man behind the camera, regardless of the lens, who nakes these images os appealing....or is it the model?

-- Anam Alpenia (aalpenia@dasar.com), March 21, 2002.

Off-topic, but here goes: I don't find these pics to be over-exposed, as others have opined. Maybe it's because I shoot B&W and hence am always looking at shadow detail. If you look at the woman's dark-colored sweater, you can see that any less exposure would have caused it to be featureless black, which is unappealing to me. I would much rather see detail in the sweater and have those delightful bright highlights on her face.

Just goes to show you that there is never one "correct" exposure.

-- Douglas Kinnear (douglas.kinnear@colostate.edu), March 21, 2002.

Mike god! you make getting rid of the 50 DR a real pain, beautiful images, a masterīs way to use that lens Mike...

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), March 21, 2002.

On the one taken with the 50 Cron DR, are we supposed to see the effects of the ding in the front element? If so, I can't seem to see anything. Maybe I'm not looking in the affected area; or, it takes a more serious blemish in the glass before anything shows up.

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), March 21, 2002.