Re: [Leica] "pre-set"

[Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com>]

At 7:19 AM -0400 8/17/01, Simon Stevens wrote:
>  >I think you must have a fairly rare example. I don't keep up with
>>stuff like that very much, but I'm sure not too many were made. Is
>>this a black paint lens? As for the 90 being a macro lens; don't bet
>>on it. It's not too bad stopped down, but nothing too exciting
>>either.
>
>No, I'm pretty sure it's not black paint. The finish is very tough and
>it doesn't have that paint glossiness.
>
>Optically I'm not sure I'd agree that the fat Summicrons are "not too
>exciting." I have no doubt that the newer ones (particularly the ASPH)
>are better but the results don't look out of place when I look at them
>side-by-side with my latest generation lenses. Not bad for 1964! At f2
>it does lose a bit of contrast, which isn't a problem in B/W but is
>noticeable (if you are looking for it) in color. But even at f2, I have
>also never seen flare with this lens and, as has been noted, the lens
>has lovely bokeh that even a non-bokeist like me can see. This is the
>real reason I suggest it would make a decent macro lens assuming
>non-flat field subjects.

I didn't mean the lens isn't very good in general; it's a very fine 
design for the 50's, but it's not that great in the macro range if 
you compare it to any decent macro lens. As for flare - again, very 
good for the time it was produced, but not up to today's standards.

All in all, a very good performing lens nicely matched with the other 
Summicrons of the time both in overall performance and bokeh 
rendition. You just have to remember that a significant reason for 
the nice bokeh is the undercorrected spherical aberration which 
detracts somewhat from the detail rendition.

- -- 
    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com