chris_peterson1 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 What Leica lense, would you avoid? Does one exist? (Other than those that are banged up or have obvious defects (fungus, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 "Is their a Leica M lense to avoid?" The one being thrown at you by an angry wife. ;>) Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_green1 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Avoid any Leica lens that will cause you to miss a Rent/Mortgage payment. That might end up being most of them for some folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 All but the latest aspherics should be avoided like the plague! The older lenses' superb bokeh, and the way they render images with what used to be referred to as a "plastic" look, makes them dangerously addictive! Save yourself. Give them to me for proper disposal. This also applies to any Leica screw mount lens marked "Angenieux" or Nikkor". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger c Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Well, some people managed to get a Canon 50/0.95 to work on their M3 bodies, and that was a real Coke bottle of a lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 <<What Leica lense, would you avoid? Does one exist? (Other than those that are banged up or have obvious defects (fungus, etc.)>> Personally I've avoided only a handful of Leica lenses much to the detriment of my finances. However those I'd avoid getting a second time include the 135APO-Telyt (the T-E is as good and lots cheaper); the tabbed 11819 50/2 (I hate tabs if I've got a choice); Noctilux (only f/1 at the center of the shot);50 Summilux (performance to the corners until f/8 not to my liking); 90 Summicron (all except APO are soft and low-contrast at f/2); 35/2 4th-gen (price inflated by myth, not that well built, optically no better than 3rd gen); 35/2ASPH (for the size and cost I'll take the Lux); 35 Lux non-ASPH (sorry to those who like this lens, but...yuck); 21ASPH (unless you can find one really cheap the 21 non-ASPH is 99% as good and costs less); 21/3.4 S/A (unless you use meterless bodies); 24 ASPH (wonderful performance in a focal length I've never found useful). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul hart Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I try to avoid the lenses I don't own, with little success. Apart from blighted examples, there seems to be at least some degree of charm to be found in any Leica lens. Those that aren't the sharpest or the fastest will have some other endearing feature that compensates. Even those that are unfashionable or eclipsed by another (eg the 50/2.8 Elmar-M) are still extraordinarily good. Just my two pennyworth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 This is Leica heresy, but I found the 4th generation 35mm Summicron (the only Leica lens I've owned) to be a dog, with low sharpness and contrast and absolutely ugly bokeh at settings larger than f4. It is easily outperformed by each of the 35mm Nikon optics I've owned, most of which cost less than $100 second-hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_sampson Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 The only poor-quality Leica lens I've owned was a 90mm f/4 Elmar. The nameplate ring around the front element was satin chrome and reflected into the lens, making it the "King of Flare". Not all 90 Elmars are like that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom5 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I never liked the old DR Summicron I had years ago. The contrast was two low for my taste. (I do now use a Summitar with SM Leicas and find it to be very nice for portraits, though low in contrast for many other tasks.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Whew! The last time we had this sort of thread, I think all five Leitz lenses I owned were on the list--now only three have made it (of course, I did sell one of the bad ones). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake_tauber Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Al, Your responses are both predictable and wonderful:>} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert knapp md Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 I second that! Al, you are always willing to sacrifice yourself for the "betterment" of your fellow Leicaphiles. A role model... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Gee, Albert, as a medical doctor do you have a better suggestion for this addiction? Perhaps we could set up residential treatment facilities? After a month of total "drying out" we could start them back into photography with Holgas. No, that wouldn't work either. Confirmed Leicaphiles would discover minute differences in the formula of the plastic, get into endless arguments about the exact date that version 12-A replaced version 12a (small a, no hyphen!), and what the total production was of a particular shade of grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_kastner Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Chris, this is a good question... (a) I like Jay, but I also like tabs. That is the reason I sold my non-tabbed 2/50 and spent a lot of time to buy a (used) tabbed 2/50. (b) I will not buy either a Nocti or a 75 or a 2/90AA (at least tomorrow) for the single, simple reason that their focussing rings are just too tough (IMUO). Maybe you and/or others see/feel this differently but I myself see/feel this that way! Thus, I avoid them. Maybe I indeed won't avoid them, when I have everything else. But that focussing stiffness pissed me off. Period!! © As to bokeh and/or anything else you might call it: Some lenses can in fact be avoided, when you want to shoot a lot of portraits, and an unneccessary sharpness of resolution etc is not good... This might mean avoiding today's 2/90AA, 2.8/90 , 2/35A, among others, when you could substitute these with a lens precursor 10-20 years earlier... (d) To repeat, it might well be useful -- if not absolutely necessary -- to first try out lenses X and Y before realising that they are not the very best you need/want. Then sell them and replace them with another variety. With Leica, that isn't all that hard or expensive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_l._doolittle Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 You don't indicate which body you use. If you're in the tiny minority that use M5's, there are indeed lenses to avoid. Certain lenses project too far into the camera body and foul the metering element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike dixon Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Damn!! Now it's up to four out of five again. Any of you bastards have a problem with the first-generation 35 Summicron for the M3?!?!? Huh!?! HUH!! Wanna go for five out of five?!? Well DO YA!!?!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Some of the later tabbed Summicron 50's have a tendency to flare horribly. Which is a shame, because otherwise it's the best 50 I've ever used. Get return privileges if you buy one of these lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_b1 Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Methinks that Jay had "tounge in cheek" with his selections. As for me, the f1.4 75mm is one to avoid. I had one - -it was/is a gorgeous lens; however, I had to sell it, as I couldn't hire a porter to carry both it and me. < g > It was simply too large and heavy, and I could substitute fast film and a 2.8. 90mm for almost the same effect. You'll notice I said "almost." If I was 40 years younger, and of strong back, legs, arms, breath and fortitude - - that 75 would be welded to my M4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 The only Leica lens I didn't care for was the black 90mm f/4 LTM Elmar. Way too soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 If I were to take you guys seriously, it would drive me crazy. Wait a minute, I do take you seriously and it <i>has</i> driven me crazy. What else do you call someone who owns three M lenses of the same focal length? Please, deliver me from this insanity. I was fine before I discovered all you rich (or in debt) fruitcakes on this nutty forum. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_killick9 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Mark's comment about the 90mm f/4 Elmar with satin chrome ring around the front element being the "King of Flare" was interesting. According to Ivor Matanle in Amateur Photographer this early postwar lens had light blue coating and a silver band; it was changed to dark blue coating, black "leather" band, and black bezel around the front element. So silver looks nice, but wasn't practical for the reason Mark gave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_lazzarini Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Dennis,Does your wife know my wife?If anything it's proved the durability of the lenses. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel_matherson Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 Although many on the forum like the 90mm f2.8 thin TE, I tell people to avoid this lens usually. To many known problems with them. Mine developed the element problem, others get front element fogging and even when you find a good one they still flare badly. The still have the devotes though but thats my thoughts anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george_b1 Posted April 26, 2003 Share Posted April 26, 2003 You know what? All of you - -including me - - belong in one of two camps that are exemplified by the comments I heard in The Maritshaus in The Hague during its exhibition of the Vermeer paintings: They're too small! I can't see the brush strokes.The colors aren't vibrant enough - - there isn't enough detail in the shadows.Where did he ever get that perspective? He should have been close.rWhy is all the light from the left side?The temperature of that light couldn't be correct. He must have made it up.I don't like the framing. Also, the composition isn't balanced correctly.Everything is in focus. Couldn't happen in real life! WOW! What masterpieces! Never seern anything like these. Now, into which camp do you find yourselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now