marco_grande

A few years back I used a wonderful film, Agfa Ultra 50 in both 120

and 35mm.

I know that the 35mm has been replaced by Ultra 100, but cant seem to

find Ultra 100 in 120.

Does anyone know if it is offered in 120?

Failing that, does anyone have a source for it in 120?

Marco

I've used both.

The lense on the SP is better between 1.7 and 2.8, no difference at

smaller openings.

Back in 1984-85 the dollar was very strong (almost reaching parity

with the British pound, an opportunity missed, the Brits could have

adopted the dollar as currency, or just tied it 1:1, kind of like the

Panamanian Balboa)<g>.

Summicron from the 50's??

<p>

Methinks not. The earliest serial numbers are in the 920xxx range,

1951.

A coated 7.3 cm Hektor (naturally), usually wide open, but certainly

not coseded down more than one sto por so.

Does anyone have experience with both 50 Summicron-R verions (German v1 vs Canadian v2).

<p>

Thoughts on differences, signature, quality, etc?

<p>

TIA, Marco

The 80-200 is the best of a rather sorry lot.

I'd buy two lenses instead, a 100/2.8 and a 200/4, both are sharper

than any you mention, and there is NO COMPARISON with respect to

flare control.

M3 (>1.0 million) modified to focus to 0.7m (does anyone know who

does this, and at what cost)and 11817 Summicron.

Idiot proof, yes.

Most useable, no.

<p>

One again a blown opportunity to sell more to a wider audience.

If you like 35mm lenses the Canon L1 (or VL or VI-L) is nice,

particulasrly with the sterling Canon 35/2.

<p>

A 35 Summicron Aspheric would be optimal, albeit pricey...

Because the CL nearly killed the company the first time around.

Almost all the profit went to Minolta. Leitz sold a ton of CL's

(nearly 65K) but made little. Probably not coincidentally (the fact

that the M5 was viewed negatively by many M users didnt help), M

sales went in the toilet.

The company came >this< close to ending M production right there and

then. But reportedly ELC proposed reviving the M4 (as the M4-2)with

lower cost in construction in Canada. Thusly the line survived.

Without the )ugly duckling, frequently maligned) M4-2 there would

have been no M4-P, no M6, no M7.

<p>

A bargain M would have a lower profit margin than the M7, so unless

they can drum up enough NEW buyers to pay for the additional

production cost and NOT sap M7 sales, no way.

Erwin's dedication to the scientific method is legendary.

<p>

He used to insist that the Collapsible 5cm Summicron and the first

rigid/Dual range models had the same optical formula. His reasoning?

Something along the lines that Leitz had never shown different cross

sections for the two and never had admitted that they were different.

(When God tells you something it must be true, no need for

investigation)

It was only after several people pointed out to him that they were

clearly physically different, and told him to LOOK at the lenses in

question did he do so, and grudgingly admitted his error. Anyone

interested can check the LUG archives from Late January/early

February 1998.

I particularly like some of the shots with the old 12.5 cm Hektor,

lovely bokeh!

A:Horrible bokeh!

That's it, my Summilux is history, Ebay here it comes!

Ive been waiting for an excuse to dump it <g>

<p>

MarcoG

Here is an interesting site. Some fellow in Japan documenting his young son's life using (primarily) really OLD Leitz lenses on various Leicas.

<p>

http://hp1.cyberstation.ne.jp/ohta2/family/kento/index.html#

<p>

Opinions?

Out of focus pictures of dishracks posted by individuals of

questionable character.

The CL has a meter.

<p>

Can't wear cargo pants at the office. The various pre-Aspheric 35

Crons, and 40 Cron-C are just too tall, makes an embarassing lump!

<p>

I know the 35 Elmar is slow, but I've got a frozen stash of PJM

Ektapress Multispeed which is quite nice and fast.

<p>

Has anyone out there actually USED the old 3.5/3.5 Elmar?

I've been carrying a Ricoh R1 around as a pocket camera, but am considering using one of my Leicas. The choice basically boils down to a IIIa with 5cm/3.5 Elmar versus a CL with 3.5cm/3.5 Elmar (the 40 Summicron is just too thick (35mm extending beyond flange vs. 16mm for the Elmar, both with caps) for comfort. The Elmar is a noce clear coated postwar version. Of course changing aperture is a pain. Using fast chromogenic film will ease the pain.

<p>

I favor the CL, it's a bit smaller, lighter and I see better at 35mm.

Any comments?

Alfie-

Great camera for taking out of focus pictures of dishracks...