"M" Lens Observations

Comments based on shooting with an M3 and M6 TTL (.72) on B&W and

color PRINT film( gave up slides years ago - cant get a good print

from slides )<p>

50mm Summicron DR - nice, but didnt notice too much difference from

any modern 50mm lens. Close focus is a plus<p>

90mm Elmarit-M (current) - very good, but again, not blown away.

Maybe I have a less than stellar example. Its like new, but I found

Minolta's 85mm f1.7 SLR Rokkor as good with as good bokeh.

Disappointed after reading that E. Puts commented one of the best M

lenses in the stable. Also, fairly long focusing throw - ESPECIALLY

compared to the tabbed 35mm below !!<p>

35mm Summicron IV version ( pre-ASPH). Now we are talking. Simply

the best wide angle I have ever used - detail/clarity/contrast/flare

control is superb. Focusing simple and fast<p>

135mm Tele Elmar ( 1970's ). Excellent performance at 5.6. Great

lens for the $$ !!<p>

50mm Summarit 1.5 ( 1960's)...one word = flare. Could be good under

the right circumstances<p>

I am tempted by the latest Summicon 50mm.....any "real world "

comments on that one ?<p>

The latest 50 'Cron is my only M lens. You can't go wrong with this lens. I'd point you to the many examples of its quality on-line, but I honestly don't think you can truly evaluate this lens' performance without looking at real prints. I don't shoot test targets or newsprint with my M6 on a tripod, but this baby is sharp.

" cant get a good print from slides "<p>

Try a Fuji Frontier machine.

Could be that sharpness differences, for example, only show up in prints around 16"x20" or larger. I think I've seen Puts mention this.

If you want a compact camera with simple, intuitive operation and interchangeable compact lenses with a really great feel to them and equal or better than anything else out there in 35mm, then you can't go far wrong with any M Leica or any lens from the current or next-to-current generation, and if they're clean and stopped down a couple stops, even the 1st M generation lenses. And use the sharpest, finest-grained film, the highest shutter speeds where the aperture still gives you the DOF you need to make the shot work, and a tripod.

 

But if your main or only want is the finest detail and tonal range in your images, you owe yourself a looksee at a larger film format.

( gave up slides years ago - cant get a good print from slides )

Where I live (Baltimore) there's been a major change in equipment used in local photo developers in the last year. The scanning equipment they have and printers do an excellent job now of producing prints from slides. Ritz camera now uses the Fuji Frontier system; eveything is digitalized then printed. You should take one of your favorite old slides and find a place nearby with some of this newer equipment. The results are outstanding.

I have to say I prefer the colour from negatives, especially when they've been scanned. I think the results are more like artists get with pastel paints whereas slides seem to be more like oil paintings - more contrast and harsher colour although some Velvia stuff can be very delicate.

It is difficult to tell lenses apart from 6 x 4 prints (but not completely impossible perhaps), so your results do not altogether surprise me. The 90mm is a first rate lens, but I do find it somehow a little characterless. I suspect, to be honest, it is much superior on paper at least to the Minolta.

 

The current 50mm Summicron is superb, but will flare every now and then unexpectedly (i.e. not when you might expect it to). I used the non d/r equivalent 50mm in the 80s and it produced the most beautiful images using K64 (a high contrast film). In this situation its lower contrast is a boon. In fact I would go so far as to say I generally prefer the lower contrast/high resolution fingerprint of the older 50 and 90mm lenses.

 

"I think the results are more like artists get with pastel paints whereas slides seem to be more like oil paintings - more contrast and harsher colour although some Velvia stuff can be very delicate."

 

Hmm. Try Reala in sunny conditions and you will get powerful "slide like-oil-painting-like" images, or Sensia/Astia (or even Provia 400F) and you will get more pastel "negative-like" shots. Velvia is not usually described as "delicate" I must say. I like it, but "highly saturated" comes to mind more than delicate. In short, I am saying that the differences between slide and neg films are no longer the way they might have been 15 years ago.