Most underrated Leica lenses

I'd be interested in your views as to the most underated Leica lenses.

 

I understand the Summitar is one such lens.

 

Any others you care to add to the list ?

 

Regards,

 

Tony Salce

I agree with the Summitar. I will add to the list the Summaron 35 2.8

 

 

mike

http://www.pobega.com

underrated in the marketplace: 135 tele-elmar. you can't give them away.

I have used over a dozen Leica lenses, and most have been sold off to make way (and finances) for my current crop of fairly conservative focal lengths and apertures. One lens that I had, immediately rejected and then sold was the Summarit. It was my first Leica lens and based on all of the hype and build up about how Leica images jumped up at you, it was shocking how soft and flary it was. I was basically ignorant and didn't do my home work... I didn't know a Summarit from a Summicron.<P>

 

Years later after enjoying the sharpness and bite from my newer Summicrons, I found several stacks of prints from the first rolls I shot with that old Summarit. Maybe it was the fact that I could have all of the sharpness I could ever want with my modern lenses, but I realized that I should have also kept the Summarit. Call it "glow" or just call it soft, but the renditions are just right for some subjects. As long as you have some other sharp lens for subjects that need that kind of treatment, the Summarit can be a very good lens for portraits.<P>

 

It was underated by me, and is sadly gone. Here is a shot made at f/1.5 with window light.<P>

 

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=935765&size=md">

</center>

My choice for the most under rated would be the 135 Tele-Elmarit. The problem(s) with it are the eyes, which tend to go out of allignment very easily, and the sheer wieght of it. the glass is outstanding. use it on a tripod, with the visoflex short focusing mount, and it very close to as good as it gets.

Mike, in my opinion the 35/2.8 summaron M don´t belong to this group, it may lack of modern development tecnology in lens designing, but it for sure was an important step into this process, remember is a lens from 1958, I used one of this for years and I even just can´t ignore diference with newer 35/2 4th version, but it is just part of evolution IMOO.

 

I would sugest into this list the 50/2.5 Hector, that although a good design it was very dificult to keep up with quality control, so many samples are poor performers, other is the non asph 34/1.4M, but also taking in account the size of this lens and non back ligth performace wide open it is a reasonable good lens.

 

The first 50/1.4 is not so nicely seen now, but pictures seen here shows creative usage for such lens.

 

Dificult question, but interesting.

The most underrated lens is the current version of the 90mm Elmarit-M. Everyone wants to sell theirs lately to replace with the APO 90mm Summicron-M but for me I prefer the Elmarit-M for its light handling.

To me an underrated lens is not one that is very cheap but one that is under-appreciated for its excellent performance.

 

Summitars and Summarits are not underrated lenses, these are not particularly good performers, although they are inexpensive.

 

My list of underrated lenses:

 

135/4.0 Tele-Elmar (outstanding performer), 135/4.0 Elmar (non-tele version, excellent performer), 90/2.8 Elmarit Wetzlar (black version 1970s vintage, amazing performer), many later visoflex lenses (eg., 65/3.5, 200/4.0, 280/4.8), 400/6.8. None of these lenses are particularly expensive as far as Leica goes, and they are all in the excellent-outstanding category. Might add the 50/2.0 black Wetzlar lens (version 11817) and the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit (not cheap but excellent performance combined with tiny size).

I agree with Steve: the 135 Tele-Elmar. I disagree with him on one point only: I couldn't get anyone to give me one free.

90mm tele-Elmarit would get my vote. It may be with good reason however.

My understanding is that there were good ones and bad ones. And when they

were bad they were sold or replaced. Discussion seemed to then paint ALL of

them as bad which they weren't.

I don't think the 135/4 is underrated, I think everybody agrees it's a fantastic performer, it's just under-used because of the small 135mm framelines. Truly underrated lenses are:

 

50/2 11817 (1969-79), even Erwin says it performs within a hair of the current version. Completely overshadowed by all the hoopla over the 1st-mount 11819 just because of the friggin' focus tab.

 

35/2 3rd version (1973-79), I've had one for years and it performs just as well as the mythical 4th-gen pre-ASPH, and it's screwed together, not glued together like the 4th-gen.

 

135/4 Elmar (1960-65): 95% of the T-E's performance plus it has a built-in tripod bush.

 

Tri-Elmar: So many people get hung up on the f/4 maximum aperture they never bother to experience the amazing performance and convenience of this lens.

 

Plus, a bonus, my list of the most *over*-rated Leica lenses:

 

1. Noctilux (any version). One stop advantage over the Summilux, 50% bigger and more expensive, significant finder blockage. Extremely shallow DOF and significant vignetting at maximum aperture are challenging to say the least.

 

2. 75/1.4. Huge, ungainly lens on M body with significant finder blockage, stiff focusing, low contrast until f/2.8.

 

3. 135/3.4 APO-Telyt. Great performance to be sure, but not anywhere near enough advantage to justify the price premium over a T-E.

 

4. 180/3.4 APO-Telyt-R. Disappointing performance at close range (which isn't even that close--2.5m!), performance at infinity great but not better than 180/2.8 Elmarit-R v.2 when both are stopped down to f/5.6, and how often do you shoot such a lens wide open at infinity? For long-distance surveillance--the reason the 180/3.4 was designed.

I'll toss in the 90mm f/4 Elmar LTM. The one I have is very sharp and contrasty. Maybe I'm lucky but I don't undersatnd all the bashing this lens seems to get.

28/2.8 3rd generation (49mm filter thread). Everybody is raving about the 28/2.0 Summicron ASPH and the 28/2.8 4th gen., but the 3rd gen. is very sharp and also has very nice bokeh.

 

Jay, you´ve been stating that the 75/1.4 has low contrast until f/2.8 in more than one thread now. Having had two of these lenses (I sold one due to focusing problems but bought another one a couple of years later) I can only disagree. At f/2 contrast is very high, _way_ higher than the 90/2 (pre-ASPH) ever had. The picture I posted on the 75mm Summilux thread was shot at f/2 on Provia 400F; it looks great in projection.

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

1. Summaron 35mm f3.5 - I havent got one, but it's supposed to

be a great lens. Cheap b/c most people think its too slow

 

2. Summaron 35mm f2.8 - definitely under-rated for price to

performance ratio compared to the elevated and much sought

after summicron 35mm 1st Version. Its reputed to have the

same imaging charactersitics as the 'cron 1st but one stop

slower - but almost a third to half the price depending on

condition. Mine has given me some stunning images.

 

3. 90 Tele-elmarit FAT version - everyone hypes on about the TE

'thin' version and has sidelined this elegant and beautifully made

lens. I like it thats its (very, very slightly) heavier than its thinner

brother as it gives better handling on the M. Classic scalloped

ring design has a solid Leica feel too. I prefer its imaging to my

thin TE, and it's a great lens for travelling, it's even shorter in

height than the TE.

Carsten, let me re-phrase: compared to the current crop of ASPH lenses such as the 335/1.4ASPH nad 90/2ASPH, the 75/1.4 is low-contrast at f/1.4, which improves steadily until f/2.8 when it exhibits about the same contrast as the aforementioned lenses do when they're wide open. The contrast continues to improve slightly until f/5.6-8 when it reaches its maximum.

Summar F2 Pre-war collapsible. Ask Erwin Putts.

<I>... 280/4.8, 400/6.8. None of these lenses are particularly expensive as far as Leica goes, and they are all in the excellent-outstanding category</I><P>The 400 in standard form is also known for it's quick handling, and the same is true of the 280/4.8 when fitted to the Televit. The 280's image circle also will cover 6x6!

fw-mtf testing-iw

 

from photodo:

 

weighted mtf for aperature; 90asph not yet tested:

 

f 35asph 75 lux

 

1.4: 0.54 0.61

 

2.0: 0.65 0.73

 

2.8: 0.75 0.81

 

4.0: 0.75 0.84

 

8.0: 0.83 0.86

 

the 35 almost approaches the 75 by f8.

By far, the most under rated Leica lens is the 40mm Summicron. It's as sharp as the non-Asph. 35mm summicron.

Steve:

 

Sadly, Photodo.com tested the non-ASPH 35 f/1.4 and labeled the results as the ASPH. (or else they tested it through tissue paper).

 

I've seen their charts, and shot pix with both 35 f/1.4s - and the curves they show represent the performance of the non-ASPH lens more accurately.

 

I guess that would qualify as 'underrating' the ASPH. 8^)

 

To me, "underrated" means " the received or conventional wisdom of the performance is less than the reality".

 

In this category I would put both Tele-Elmarit 90s and the 50 Summilux-M.

 

Otherwise, with regard to both R and M lenses - I think the perceptions pretty much match the reality. People know what the Noctilux does - they may liek it or dislike it, but its performance level isn't in doubt, per se.

 

The 75 gets a little overhyped - it's softer at f/1.4 than the 50 1.4, for example - but it does what it does and produces some great shots in the right hands, and when shot tight enough.

Maybe, for "underrated," I'd like to say "underappreciated." For me, it's *any* of the series of 50mm lenses - - if I can believe the posts from the majority of those who subscribe to this list. If you go back through the archives, the 50mm is the "most left out" of one's selection of lenses to take along for street photography, PJ, or travel. Wide angle and super wides predominate the discussions, particularly in the 35mm posts.

 

The 50mm appears to be the plain vanilla step sister in the current M-series Leica stable, although many of the earlier seminal photographs were taken with the legendary 50mm's. For today, is it just *too boring?*

Hi All,

I agree with the 40mm summicron being underrated. Mine has scratches/coating faults on the rear lens element and still produces astounding images from f/2 on down. I also have to put in a good word for the 75mm f/1.4. Mine is brilliant wide open and only gets better at the other aperatures. I am also suprised at the bad press the 180 3.4 gets for close focusing. Mine was supurlative at all distances. And I more often than not shot wide open and always obtained brittle sharpness and contrast. While shooting a group in mid-afternoon sun, a shot of a woman showed every hair in sharp outline and a shot of a five year-old showed the most beautiful tonal gradation that I have ever seen. Both shots were on the lens' closest setting. I would recommend either lens.

Happy shooting, everyone.

Mike Pobega, yóu´re rigth, I had understood question wrong, and I just can agree with you about 35M summaron, 28MIII seems so much better than how it is rated.

 

Albert, your portrait looks splendid, can´t have it back?

I've got an uncoated Summitar, and it stinks.

This pic was taken with my 50mm Summar (1936) at f3.2 on a rainy day in Verona. Camera was a 1936 Leica III.