richard jepsen

<p>I had a Summicron-M 35/2, type 11309, second version. If one is wanting to shoot color this is a great lens. Nothing bad to say about it or the 35mm focal length which goes well with a M camera and its viewfinder.<br /> I currently have a Summicron-M, 50/2, Type 11116, collapsible. The lens is in perfect condition. It's my favorite for B&W and portraits. The lens is not very usable wide open in flat light due to low contrast. But between f/2.8 to f/4.0 it's fabulous. Circular highlights. Incredible detail in cross light. Smooth B&W tonal range and out of focus rendering. It's small size goes hand-in-hand with what a M camera is all about. The last reason the lens is a favorite is the focal length is flexible and the build quality and physical look of the lens interesting.<br /> I have a Minolta 40/2. I'll use it as a modern reference when discussing the collapsible. The 40mm is great with the 35mm frame on the M-4P and later cameras. Its FOV fits into the 35mm rangefinder frame more accurately than a 35mm cron. But if you trying to blur the backgrounds and shoot people the older collapsible is better. The lens is also great for landscapes. It and the rigid have very high resolution. With strong side light the lower contrast helps record tones while the high resolution records details. Later optic designs backed off the resolution and biased the lens towards higher contrast. At f/ 5.6 and to f/11 there should not be much difference in a 1956 lens and a 1980 designed lens. The magic is at f/2.8 to f/4.</p>

<p>I'm late to the discussion but I use a mint 1956 11116 for the last several years. It is my favorite lens. I purchased the lens from Robert Reed who liquidated the General Roy Moss collection when he passed. Old Leica people know of Roy Moss.<br /> <br /> "At full aperture overall contrast is low to medium, and coarse detail is rendered with good clarity over most of the image field, corners excepted."<br>

<br /> This is accurate. Subjects in flat light shot at f/2 is not a strong point. It is excellent stopped down to f/2.8 and outstanding at f/4 its best aperture. Subjects illuminated with strong side reveal a level of detail which is unbelievable. This is a high resolution low contrast lens. Detail is there when you enlarge to 8x12.<br /> <br /> I love this lens for portraits. It renders the most beautiful out-of-focus affects. Up close at f/4 you can isolate the subject rendering butter smooth backgrounds with circular specular highlights. Tonality is lush and rich.<br /> <br /> I suspect the image signature is similar to a rigid at f/2.8 to f/16. If wanting to shoot with vintage glass the condition of the lens is more important than if the lens is a rigid (11818), collapsible (11116), or DR.<br /> <br /> The lens thankfully lacks the high contrast of modern optics. That's OK. Lower contrast works better for B&W. I increase film development time by 60s and agitate slightly more.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Max, I just noticed your using XTOL, another good choice. Try Tri-X rated at 250 in XTOL 1:2, 20c, at 10.25 M. Sharpness will increase. When souping in dilute developer use no less than 250ml of stock developer. Add the additional two parts of water. 100ml of undiluted developer may be enough to develop you film but it may not be enough to its fullest potential. </p>

<p>Max; congratulations on using a Rollei TLR. I read the new T-Max 400 has sharpness similar to FP-4. With T-Max, you can avoid using a light yellow filter as T-Max 400 renders blue skies slightly darker. So if you need the speed of ISO 400, T-Max is a good choice over Tri-X. <br>

As others mentioned, you should de-rate Tri-X to ISO 200 in D-76 1:1 or 250 in XTOL 1:1 or 1:2. Shooting at a lower film speed avoids empty shadows. Your tones will separate better on the low (dark) end of the tonal scale.<br>

There is a subtle differences between FP-4 (80) and Tri-X (200) at enlargements below 8X. A Rollei TLR on a tripod using FP-4 is the best choice for landscape. Master FP-4 and Tri-X and then compare to T-Max 400. I recommend developing Tri-X (200) in D-76 1-1, 20c, at 10M. 4 agitation cycles each 60s. You may wish to agitate every 30s for the first 3 to 5 min to tweak contrast. </p>

<p>I have a 1956 SOOIC Cron I understand draws similar to the 35/2.8 Summaron. One 5x7 B&W image from the old Cron looks like medium format; sharp/smooth. The image was shot up-close at f/2.8 or 4. Street photography shot at f/8 will render most of the background in focus. The reason for the Summaron is the way it draws the OOF area and its sharpness up close. As for a 40, I have one and it works great with the smaller M6 35mm frame coverage. What you get on film using a 40 with M6 35 lines is close to 100% coverage. The 40mm will be more accurate on the M6/7/MP finder vs a M4/5.</p>

<p>I have not seen images of the Elmar vs the Summarit. I own the recent 28/2.8 which is very nice. Given the Summarit is not a Tessar design it's image quality may not be as clinical as the Elmar and should produce excellent image quality at full aperture. On the other hand the Elmar is reported to be very sharp close up. The Elmar is kinda retro looking and comes in chrome and black. I tend to like how Mandler designed optics draw for B&W prints. </p>

<p>I would not argue the MP is the ultimate M. Better in many ways than other M bodies. I appreciate the crisp MP finder contrast and the meter readout. The exposure confirmation circle in the MP is an improvement over the M6 triangle display. But I also like a linear meter display found in the M5. It gives more information. <br>

I don't care for the undersized frames in the M6/MP. Today I checked the MP against my SLR and a borrowed M2 and I estimate the 28/25/50/75/90 finder is undersized by 15% on the 50mm frame. At 15 feet one needs to take a big step forward to capture on film your original composition. The M2/4/5 frames are more accurate. <br>

The M2s I have seen do not have a contrasty finder like the MP. I assume the M4/5 is close in brightness/contrast to the MP. I think I am leaning to replacing the MP with a M5. I'm a shooter and the 35/50/90 focal length seems to work best for enlargements around 5x7.<br>

All this said, the 35 frame on the MP is perfect for a 40mm. The 40/90 (code 11800) makes a flexible, cost effective, lightweight kit.</p>

<p>The MP has minor shutter and finder improvements I don't think are in the MJ6. If the MJ6 and M6 share the same meter, the MP with the round exposure indicator is an improvement. Many think the MP looks better but that's subjective and unimportant if you want to photograph. The .85 finder makes it harder to see the 35 frame and lacks the 28. You can attach a 1.4X mag to a .72 finder. That lets you remove the focus aid while retaining the popular .72 finder magnification most people want. Last, the MJ6 should be more expensive than the MP. Expensive cameras seem to stay on a shelf.</p>

<p>I am thinking of buying either a M4 or M5 to replace a MP for framing and financial reasons. Are the 35/50/90/135 frame lines displayed the same in both the M4 and M5? Does the M5 viewfinder mask provide more room vs other Ms to better view the meter display?</p>

<p>The lack of meter is not an issue. The ability to focus is an issue. I considered a M3 with the higher mag but don't care for a lower contrast/blue tint viewfinder. One reason for my Leica purchase was the easier focusing in low light.</p>

<p>Sorry folks, I asked this question awhile ago and the feedback was the battery drain is near zero.</p>

 

<p>I understand the M5 meter will not switch off if the camera is cocked. My shooting habit is to advance the film for the next shot. The meter would stay on if I did not change my habits. The older Pentax cameras also work like this. <br>

Can one just cover the lens and therefore reduce the battery drain to near zero?<br>

Is one technique to fire off the frame with the lens cap on and use the double exposure procedure to not waste the frame? Any other thoughts from M5 shooters on how to deal with the meter besides not using it in favor of a incident meter?</p>

 

<p>Al and I exchanged a few e-mails over the years. The quality of his posts indicate he had more practical knowledge of all things Leica than almost anyone on the net. He was the polar opposite of photographers who own a Leica for reasons other than photographic,. A character who could be defensive but having a big heart and willing to share knowledge. He will be missed but his posts live on. Now how do you file a Rokkor 40 to bring up the 35mm frame (smile). </p>

<p>I recently bought a mint collapsible cron f/2.0. By definition it has the classic Leica look. Smooth oof effects focused at 4 or 5 ft with nice sharpness @f/2.8 using FP-4+ film. Plus it is a very small lens. A 40mm cron is a great buy and lens but you will not get that special OOF effect you get with a collapsible. </p>

<p>I love my old Planar F/2.8 E 2. The pictures it takes are full, round and 3D. I understand the 6000 series was superb but the old TLR are collectible and take fantastic B&W images partly due to lens contrast. There is no commercial market for film cameras. Those who know need to inform the younger generation to try something different than digital. Everyone can do digital but how many people can print gelatin silver prints. Silver prints look rich in the hand. Completely different than digital. </p>

<p>I'm sure your excited to see shooting results. I went a different route. I wanted to shoot hand-held, under interior ambient light. I bought the most recent 28/2.8. The used mint optic was priced at $1200 and is the size of a smaller 35/2.0 V4. In theory, a 28/2.8 wide open with slower shutter speed may pull as sharp an image as a modern 35/2.0. Of course its not a 1.4.</p>

<p>I am thinking of buying a M5 and selling my MP. I especially like three features on the M5 (size, overhanging shutter dial, and in-camera meter readout). However, I understand when the M5 shutter is advanced (cocked) the light meter is permanently active. The only method to turn the meter off is to make an exposure. <br /> My shooting habit is to advance the film to be ready for the next shot. Will the M5 battery drain with the lens cap on and shutter cocked? <br /> What technique do M5 users use concerning the on/off use of the meter?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I suggest D-76. Some of the suggestions aren't as good as this older standard. D-76 and XTOL give close results; with the nod towards XTOL. You lose 1/3 stop, 10% enlargabilty, and about 2/3 months shelf-storage with D-76. You may not see any difference between the 2 developers with modest enlargements using a medium speed film in miniature format. </p>

<p>I bit the bullet and bought a mint 28/2.8 Asp. Last night I enlarged a couple of images to 8x12. The film was FP-4, EI of 80, souped in D-76 1:1. Negative contrast was higher than negatives shot with 1970s Minolta Rokkor-X glass. I lowered filtration by .5 to 1 grade. <br>

Handling: Focus adjustment is accomplished using the tab and left index finger. You adjust the aperture with the thumb. However, focused at 3 to 4 feet, the tab is located the 6:30 position forcing you to switch fingers and focus with the thumb vs the index finger. This will feel more natural with practice. Focus is butter smooth. There is low resistance when changing the aperture. The aperture ergonomics feel less substantial than my Minolta CLE 40mm or Tele-Elmarit but better than the 35mm v2 Cron I once had. Low resistance aids adjusting the f-stop with your thumb. The lens size is small, 30/46 mm (with/without lens hood). The Zeiss 28/2.8 length is 52mm without hood. However, the Leica hood blocks about 15% of the lower left field of view. Not an issue. The rectangular shade is locked in place and its cap a soft rubber. Very convenient. <br>

Image Quality: There was no flare in conditions where my SLR 28mm would have flared. I did not notice vigneting or a harsh out-of-focus fingerprint. Printed B&W images were shot at f/2.8 with subject focused at 4.3 ft. <br>

Test Results: I notice the 28/2.8 Asp has better numbers vs the new more expensive 35/2.8. At f/5.6 the numbers are similar between the two lenses. Bottom line the 28/2.8 appears to be a great buy. </p>

<p>Can anyone comment on subject lens (code 11606) image finger print with B&W film like Tri-X or FP-4. Is the earlier 28mm versions (#3 or #4) better with B&W? <br>

At the current prices $1400- 1500 this optic is the least expensive of the current lenses. What gives, a 28mm used to be more expensive? Why the big price jump between the 28/2.8 Asp and a 35/2 Asp? </p>

<p>Rangefinder Forum<br>

Make it the big tent</p>

<p>"Look also to the 60's and 70's vintage MF press rangefinder cameras: the Mamiya Press/Universal and the Koni-Omega Rapid's." <br>

These older rangefinders along with inexpensive 1970 small format rangefinders lack crisp focusing coincident edges. A soft edge image overlaps each other when in focus. In general the contrast is enhanced by a blue and yellow hue. It is easier to focus the Leica, Bronica RF645 and Mamiya 6/7 type rangefinders. </p>

 

Brian's picture of the girl with the green t-shirt has the early cron look. I prefer B&W film with vintage lenses but Brian's picture demonstrates the less-than-sharp look and collapsible background OOF effects. Large subject outlines tend to be sharp; the fine details slightly unsharp when shot wide-open and up-close. That's the look

<p>".....the collapsible Summicron has a "painterly" effect that many of us value in a lens". Rob, can you quantify this rather vague description.<br>

I can't show images but 11116 focused at 3 ft at f/2.0 is low contrast with strong creamy backgrounds. Low tones seem to resist sliding to black through the wider apertures. This helps make B&W tonality broader. The image has a sharp/unsharp look. Backgrounds have a Hasselblad-like smooth OOF effect. Focus at 4 or 5 feet at f/2.8 and the image sharpens but is not too sharp. Again you have a strong OOF effect that looks creamy. At f5.6 and smaller the image is very crisp and highly detailed. </p>

 

<p>It has been said the more highly corrected a lens becomes the less interesting picture it takes. Nothing wrong with the older glass, as long as you know there performance fingerprint. At f/5 and smaller apertures, there may be no difference in sharpness at 5x7 or slightly larger. </p>

<p>I found B&W negatives benefit from low/medium contrast optics. The Mandler lenses are the best compromise between modern wire sharpness and the lower contrast found in any lens manufactured in the 50s. My sold 35/2 cron had wonderful color and good B&W.<br>

I'm shooting with a recently acquired, mint, Cron 50/2 collapsible. 11116 has great bokeh, a circular iris, and high resolution. The resolution comes out in Oklahoma's angled Feburary daylight with open shadows. </p>