The message in this post is this - Don’t knock the oldies just because they are not as sharp or contrasty as the later lenses esp. wide open. If used well within their limits and if the user is up to it, they will produce unique images and are really worth persisting with. (Besides it gives a good excuse to buy gear.)

Like most people I have been guilty of always looking for the “perfect” lens. But I have been re-evaluating this. I think it really is true that any assessment of a (Leica) lens has to take into account the creative effects that the user is going for. I have an Elmar 50 3.5 (pre-war, but evidently factory coated by Leitz when the 111a it sat on was upgraded to 111F sync in the 1950’s,) a Summitar 50 (post war, coated), a Summarit 50, a Summicron DR and a later model (1980’s) Summicron 50. Yep, excessive, I know, but I cannot bring myself to sell them as they all have different characteristics. (Besides which the older lenses are like pieces of jewellery and are great to just admire and play with - Boys Toys!)

The late Summicron produces sharp, contrasty and luminous images that never cease to blow me away (when I get it right.) The Summarit is very low contrast by comparison and nowhere near as sharp, but it can be very effective esp. with colour. (I find a lot of modern emulsions too “in your face” anyway, so the low contrast helps.) I have been reluctant to use it for B&W because it is so low contrast but after seeing images shot with it at the site below (posted here by another member recently) I have to re-evaluate that. As to the Summitar, it is a surprisingly good lens that I have read is as sharp as the 1950’s Summicron - in the centre. I would not argue with that. I have to use the DR more before I make a comment and I can’t compare it to its contemporary Summicrons as I haven’t used them. The Elmar (dates to 1934!!!) also produces surprisingly good images with real character altho’ I suspect the coating makes it a different proposition to the uncoated version.

On this theme, I have used a pre-war Contax with a 3.5 uncoated Tessar (similar 4 element design to the Elmar) and was gob smacked by the appearance of its images using XP-2 shot at 200. Not as sharp or contrasty as modern lenses, just - different. I sold the kit to buy some Leica gear, but as usual, regretted it later.

Sorry I don’t presently have any pics available to post but hope to rectify this soon when time allows.

Check these images (thanks to the person who first posted this link.) http://hp1.cyberstation.ne.jp/ohta2/family/kento/index.html

-- Peter (peterm1@ozemail.com.au), May 04, 2002

Answers

I agree entirely, the older lenses need 'learning'(or in my case re- learning), but once you know the characteristics they are a superb way to refresh the brain and get you away from the sharp and contrasty school. On the Contax front, I have a pre war Contax II with an f2 Sonnar, which I use rarely simply because it is to good a lens! I may as well use my much newer Leica gear! For a collapsible lens it knocks spots off my 1958 f2.8 Elmar for sharpness and contrast.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), May 05, 2002.

Amen. You don't need the latest lenses to get good results for most situations. IMHO, the main advantage provided by modern (i.e., post-1960s) lenses has been in improved coatings (& the advent of multi-coating), which reduce flare considerably. However, I agree that older lenses have more "character." This was probably more the result of unavoidable compromises necessitated by the available technology back in the 1930s & 1940s rather than intentional design, but the near-perfection provided by modern lenses can be boring. Sometimes, only old glass (& traditional film & paper) can provide the look you want to achieve. Like you & Mr. Barnett, I'm a big fan of the Zeiss lenses made for the Zeiss Ikon Contax RFs--so much so that I use a Contax RF-to-LTM adapter so that I can use my Sonnars & Tessars on my Leica M bodies (just like HCB).

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), May 05, 2002.