Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jerry, Right on both counts. Like many, or maybe most, Leica fans I've owned a number of collapsible lenses over the years, let's see; 3.5 Elmars in both SM and M, 2.8 Elmar original version, two Summicrons, three Summitars (usually came with a IIIf), and 2 of the current design Elmar-Ms - the first traded off for something I didn't actually need as much, sigh. Oddly enough, the only one I failed to extend completely for a shoot was the first current Elmar-M. As for the second point, yes the Summilux has everthing I like about Leica lenses: sharpness, good bokeh, excellent tonality, etc. It will remain my go-to 50, and probably my go-to lens overall. But the Elmar-M is no slouch either. It is usable wide open (unlike the original version, IMO), and very sharp around the mid-apertures. Flare is well controlled. To me it produces a nice look all its own. And yes, the version I just bought is chrome, so the weight difference is negligible. Will von Dauster Denver Chattier than usual today... On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:48 PM, Jerry Lehrer wrote: > Will > > I have found that he who uses a collapsible lens, oft forgets > to erect it. When erect, my f2.8 Elmar was not that much > shorter or lighter than my Summilux. But oh, the difference > in quality of image! > > Jerry - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html