JoaoF
Member
Hello to everyone!
i'm about to buy a nice M2 with a 50 summilux type I, but i can't find any review, any opinion, any example photos, any nothing on this lens, i know it's the first of it's kind (this exemple i think it's from 58 or 59, got to check), but i love that "Classic"look that made Leica so famous, the lens design is the first one and i not so great like the other's, ken rockwell says to keep away from them, lolololol, but his Ken Rockwell.
Can anyone help me on this one.
i'm giving up my Mamiya7 for this, great camera and lens but not for my kind of photography. (if anyone is interested PM me).
Thankx to everyone in advance.
i'm about to buy a nice M2 with a 50 summilux type I, but i can't find any review, any opinion, any example photos, any nothing on this lens, i know it's the first of it's kind (this exemple i think it's from 58 or 59, got to check), but i love that "Classic"look that made Leica so famous, the lens design is the first one and i not so great like the other's, ken rockwell says to keep away from them, lolololol, but his Ken Rockwell.
Can anyone help me on this one.
i'm giving up my Mamiya7 for this, great camera and lens but not for my kind of photography. (if anyone is interested PM me).
Thankx to everyone in advance.
Waus
Well-known
Erwin Puts-one of the Leica guru's- says it nearly the same as the Summarit 1:1,5/5cm-wide open not a lot of contrast-but from f4 great. Type 2 summiluxi have more contrast wide open.
I own an Type 1 and I love it's look...
I own an Type 1 and I love it's look...
JoaoF
Member
thank you Waus. i'll check!
JMQ
Well-known
Joao,
The Type I Lux was made from 1959-1963, with serial numbers below 1844001. Fewer than 20,000 of the Type I lenses were made. The Type II is the more common as it was made from 1964 all the way until 2002 or 2003 with little or no change in the optical design.
The Type I Lux was made from 1959-1963, with serial numbers below 1844001. Fewer than 20,000 of the Type I lenses were made. The Type II is the more common as it was made from 1964 all the way until 2002 or 2003 with little or no change in the optical design.
Erik van Straten
Mentor
Version I does not have the terrible barrel distortion of the Version II, but has more coma wide open. I would take Version I.
Erik.
Erik.
JoaoF
Member
Erik, can you tell me what is the Coma in the Lens? how can i identify it?
Erik van Straten
Mentor
João, coma can be identified by lightpoints in the background that are deformed like butterflies. In the corners the effect is stronger. This causes less brilliant performance of the lens. When the coma is corrected, the points have an oval shape, but usually then the lens has barrel distortion. It is one of the two. Only aspherical lenses can correct both effects at the same time.
Erik.
Erik.
porktaco
Well-known
i did not know that
JoaoF
Member
thank you Erik for the explanation, and thanks to all for your contribuition
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Xenon ---> Summarit ---> Summilux v. I --- SUmmilux v. II.
The Xenon, a Schneider design, is uncoated. Summarit is a coated Xenon. The Xenon, Summarit, and v.I Summilux all have two thin airspaced elements at the rear. With the v.II, the rear group was changed to a cemented doublet, while the second group became airspaced rather than cemented. The configuration of the remaining elements is similar, though not identical, from model to model, with a strong family resemblance. Mostly these changes took advantage of newer optical glasses that were not available earlier.
I always sort of wanted a version I. I just like the look of it, especially the cross-hatched grip area at the base. But in the end I bought version II, believing it to have better optical performance. As the preceding posts have shown, which one is "better" is subjective.
I did own a Xenon briefly, in the early 1960's. As I recall it was marked "Taylor Taylor & Hobson" on the barrel, with the Leitz name on the front retaining ring. It had a big, clunky rectangular hood that would cost a fortune to buy today!
Since you want to made photos with a "classic" Leica look, and you seem to want this lens, like I always did, I would go for it--no matter what Ken Rockwell says!
The Xenon, a Schneider design, is uncoated. Summarit is a coated Xenon. The Xenon, Summarit, and v.I Summilux all have two thin airspaced elements at the rear. With the v.II, the rear group was changed to a cemented doublet, while the second group became airspaced rather than cemented. The configuration of the remaining elements is similar, though not identical, from model to model, with a strong family resemblance. Mostly these changes took advantage of newer optical glasses that were not available earlier.
I always sort of wanted a version I. I just like the look of it, especially the cross-hatched grip area at the base. But in the end I bought version II, believing it to have better optical performance. As the preceding posts have shown, which one is "better" is subjective.
I did own a Xenon briefly, in the early 1960's. As I recall it was marked "Taylor Taylor & Hobson" on the barrel, with the Leitz name on the front retaining ring. It had a big, clunky rectangular hood that would cost a fortune to buy today!
Since you want to made photos with a "classic" Leica look, and you seem to want this lens, like I always did, I would go for it--no matter what Ken Rockwell says!