simon_rodgerson

My 2.8 summaron is almost in almost perfect condition, no haze, but I sold it and replaced it with the 35 asph 1.4 . You know, I missed that summaron so much , I bought the thing back. Fortunately the dealer, The Camera Exchange, Melbourne hadn't sold it. Thanks Dave! I love the lens. Optically great and so compact.

Simon.

umm...I think a slower shutter might help you in that it would increase your depth of field . No, I'm afraid it looks to be a focusing problem.

I find the 2.8 summaron to be great. I even prefer it to the new 35 'lux' I owned. It handles well, has very nice smooth out of focus rendering, better than the lux,(to my eyes anyway), is plenty sharp. Sorry , i have no experience with the 40 'cron'.

After reading the current thread about HCB, it raised this old question of

mine. Exactly what bodies and lenses did he use and when in the years he

worked. I've read somewhere he used a 50 elmar with 400 asa for most of his

work. That was pretty much it. I also read later on a 35 and 90 were in his

armoury at times,( no idea what type) however he didn't care for them so much

saying the 90 was like looking through a tunnel and wide angles over

exaggerated. However, whenever I've looked into this, I've never found anything

very specific. Can anyone set this straight for me?

One thing I don't care for with the 3rd version is the closer focusing compared to the 2nd version. To me ,this lens was not designed for such close focusing. Well at least I was wasn't happy with my results on the few times I tried it.

Richard I've had both 2nd and 3rd versions. Regretably I sold the 2nd version, then later on got the 3rd version after using a Nocton 50 . Both are very flair resistant, both are very nice lenses. To me the older lux just felt better with it's smaller filter size and attachable hood. I might be imagining it but also the OOF areas looked smoother and warmer when I look at old slides. The 'newer' 46mm filter lux never seemed to quite replicated that look. So I'd go for a version 2.

Again, thanks all for responding and Bob, thanks for the info on the possible protusion. I was going to use it on my m2 with B/W, so no problems there, but who knows when I will enter the rangefinder digital scene. It's just a matter of timing and money. For digital now,I use D1x/h, but loud.... like a rifle. It's nice to return to an M. Andrew says the lens is a 'bit soft' wide open. Does that mean it's something like a pre asph. summilux 50. Simon,your comments encourage me, and you say it was sharp in the center wide open, well I'd say the old 50 was a bit soft all over WO.Regardless,if it's no worse than the old 50,which I have, I can live with that.BTW, the shop owner has it on hold for me till Monday.I guess there's only one way to find out...test it or buy it.

Again, thanks all for responding and Bob, thanks for the info on the possible protusion. I was going to use it on my m2 with B/W, so no problems there, but who knows when I will enter the rangefinder digital scene. It's just a matter of timing and money. For digital now,I use D1x/h, but loud.... like a rifle. It's nice to return to an M. Andrew says the lens is a 'bit soft' wide open. Does that mean it's something like a pre asph. summilux 50. Simon,your comments encourage me, and you say it was sharp in the center wide open, well I'd say the old 50 was a bit soft all over WO.Regardless,if it's no worse than the old 50,which I have, I can live with that.BTW, the shop owner has it on hold for me.I guess there's only one way to find out...test it or buy it.

Thanks for your advise everyone. I appreciate all of it. I didn't check the serial no. carefully, although if I remember correctly it's around 29xxxxxx. I've always had a suspicion that the later ones were better regarding flare at least and I suppose this one is late enough. This lens sure does draw a wide range of thoughts. I gotta say I'm still scratching my head, but I think that leaving that hood alone until I can find a correct one is sensible at this stage. BTW, the lens has been in the shop for 3 weeks now, so it's not exactly flying out the door. The glass is v.good. Thanks again.

I'm tempted to buy a 35 pre ash summilux M in nice condition for 690 euros. I

probably don't need it because I've got a summaron. But people on this forum

have praised it for it's own qualities and I figure the price seems ok. The

lens, a black one, does not come with a hood.I heard that this lens can flare

easily! The shop owner seems to thinks a used 50 summicron round slatted hood

would work, which he just happens to have to sell. I'm not so sure. Does anyone

know if a round 50 hood would work, or would it darken the corners?

Simon.

While on the subject of the 1st version summicron, I had it and liked it, but it flared easily, very annoying. Probably should have bought the v2 or v2 elmarit.

Simon.

Rob, the only trouble is Leica don't make the sensor, so what's in it for them. On the other hand, I'm more likely to buy the camera in the first place knowing about it's anti absolecense feature.

This might be a stupid idea, but would it be possible in the future that the sensor itself be designed to be 'unplugged' or replaced as new technology arrives, thereby reducing some financial loss of the camera, or would the loss be no less than simply trading up to the latest.

Simon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the R9 also has auto exposure lock (AEL) on all metering options. The R8 had it on spot metering only.

There you go. What sort of an expert am I? Still, its soft, although with some double image highlights.

Thanks Trevor. Can you tell us which lens was that? I like the bokeh. To many people, bokeh is secondary, but one develops an eye for it over time. Once you have the knack, it becomes a conscious artistic tool to your photo.�Good` bokeh softly compliments the feature with warmth. The trouble is, I�ve become a bit obsessive with it. To me a lens still needs to be sharp, but sharpness means nothing if I�m unimpressed with it�s bokeh. It�s a touchy subject because bokeh is not important if that�s not your style. It may be that biting sharpness opened up, and contrast with colour is more the look. People also change in time the aspects they prefer or admire in a photo. I�ve tested briefly sharpness and bokeh with the 35 summaron 2.8 and the 35 summicron asph. outside in overcast conditions at the same f. stops, and was surprised that I didn�t see much of a difference. I might of under different conditions, but I breifly thought, `What�s the point?�. Oh yeah, I�m in Leicaworld. It can be an all consuming hobby.

I too was impressed with the sharpness of the asph. lux, but at the time I saw an advantage only at the wider stops.So I sold it with some small regrets. My summaron had more the look I was after, but of course now I�m without that biting wide open 1.4 sharpness. So, if you don�t mind carrying around the size,the viewfinder blockage with the hood,the expense and you love shooting low light, then it�s a great modern lens.

I have this lens, s/n 76xxx and have also had the SSC convex. While it was some 6 years ago since I used the convex, that lens never struck me as being that good. The concave on the other hand is good, although the cast can be a bit off putting, but I knew that when I bought it, so its the choice I make. What makes it pleasing to me, is not just its sharpness wide open or whatever, but its softness of tones, its bokeh. It just gets results that please me. It works well with portraits too. I?d love to use it with b&w. instead of 100 sensia.