Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Look, the Leica Look

Subject: [OM] Look, the Leica Look
From: <michaeljohnston@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 99 14:27:56 -0600
Paul Connet wrote:

>I recently paid $390 USD for a 
>well-used 50mm Summicron of the third generation looking for the elusive 
>"Leica Look". I am still trying to see it.


Paul,
Try a 7-element Collapsible Summicron from 1953-6. That will give you the 
"look." It's not a very reliable lens _contre jour_, and not good at the wider 
apertures, but it's the quintessential Leica 50mm. 

I'm told by old-timers at Magnum that Henri Cartier-Bresson has always used the 
newest M-cameras, whatever that happened to be at any given time, but that from 
1953 he has always used the Collapsible 50mm f/2 for most of his work. In the 
literature you often encounter the phrase "Cartier-Bresson used..." 
[such-and-such different lens], because apparently he liked to carry, play 
with, and try out various lenses, and so he was occasionally seen with 
different things. He also carried a 35mm and a 90mm as part of his daily kit. 
But the late Erich Hartmann, a past President of Magnum, told me that you can 
go through book after book of H. C.-B. contact sheets at the Magnum archives (I 
got to go through a few myself) without ever seeing a single frame that might 
have been taken with the 35mm, and only very occasionally one taken with the 
90mm, which was used chiefly for landscapes. According to Erich, who knew him 
for many years, the vast majority of H. C.-B.'s work was done with the 50mm 
Summicron and the vast majority of his 50mm Summicron pictures were taken with 
the Collapsible.

I would not be at all surprised, however, if he had custom multi-coated ones 
made or modified specially for him by Leica. The stock Collapsible was never 
multicoated.

There are Japanese Leica connoisseurs who opine that by the time of the third 
computation, 6-element 1969 lens (known in some circles as the "Six-Glass"), 
Leica had given up on  premium, no-holds-barred construction and, like 
everybody else, was taking economics into account. The earlier 7-elements do 
not have that problems--the Collapsible and the DR (Dual-Range) are built to a 
very high standard, that even Leica has left behind long ago (see Stephen 
Gandy's excellent cameraquest.com website for more on this).

There is an article in the current LHSA _Viewfinder_ claiming that the 
Six-Glass may be the best of the Summicrons. It is definitely not. (I know 
whereof I speak, having tried 'em all.)

However, the best Summicron, the latest--4th, 1979, Mandler-designed one--is 
essentially very similar to the 50/1.8 Zuiko. It's the same basic design. 
Performance parameters can be tweaked with glass types, coatings, and very 
subtle variations in sphericity such that the lenses won't perform 
identically--Leica has evidently gone for more even performance across the 
apertures, meaning somewhat better performance wide open, an observation borne 
out by Gary's most recent test--but they're not that different. QC on the 
Leicas is somehwat better (still not perfect), but given the vast disparity in 
price we can forgive Olympus for that!

Incidentally, a 5th-generation Summicron exists in prototype. It is 
apochromatic and has at least one aspheric element. From what I've heard, 
they're holding off on production until they can get the price down. (This is 
gossip, so please treat it as such, but my little birdies perch pretty close to 
the source.)

Generally, the better Zuiko lenses are as good as Leica lenses. The main 
difference IMHO is that Leica can charge more than anybody else, so they have 
more money to work with in producing a lens. This generally plays out in the 
quality of the barrel (mount) and the QC tolerances.

Hope all this is of interest.


Denton Taylor wrote:

>So can you explain briefly why it is more beneficial for the
>publisher for readers to subscribe (besides of course you getting a chunk of
>money up front) than buying on the newsstand?


Hi there Denton. I can explain it succinctly--because we don't make a Gø&&@#n 
dime on an issue sold at the newsstand. We actually lose just a little money 
per copy sold. We do it because it creates visibility (advertisers like that), 
keeps circulation numbers up (advertisers like that too), and because newsstand 
buyers "convert" to subscriptions at a higher rate than promotion mailings do.

--Mike



Mike Johnston, Editor-in-Chief
_PHOTO Techniques_ magazine
(www.phototechmag.com)
Preston Publications Division of Preston Industries, Inc.
Niles, Illinois


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz