Signature Leica Lenses --Rangefindergreenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
What, if any, are the signature Leica rangefinder lenses?
-- Stephen York (S.G.York@worldnet.att.net), October 25, 2001
Stephen, it might help if you define exactly what you mean by signature... I think most would agree that the 50mm Elmar is likely THE signature Leica lens, but several others come to mind as well depending on your definition of signature. Heck, with a loose enough definition, ALL Leica lenses could be considered signature lenses!
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 25, 2001.
It depends, also, on whether you are considering the screw-mount line or more modern M-mount. I assume by 'signature' you mean one of three things: unique to Leica, most defining of Leica photography, or those lenses at least one of which is central to anyone's Leica outfit.IMHO (and I am less 'connected' to the screw-mount line)
In screw-mount: 50 3.5 Elmar collapsible; 90 f/4 Elmar collapsible; probably one of the faster 50 Summar/Summarit/Summitars; possibly the 35 f/3.5 Elmar. I'll let the experts take it from there.
In M bayonet mount 'historically' - the M3/2/4 era: Summicron 35 f/2 (as someone once said, for a large number of Leica photographers this lens might just as well be welded to the camera body); Summicron 50 f/2 (also a 'weld-ee'); Summicron 50 f/2 collapsible, Summicron 50 Dual- range (close-up), 50 Noctilux f/1 or 1.2, Super-Angulon 21 f/3.4 (THE Leica wide-angle for nearly 20 years 1960-1980).
In the current new M-lenses: 35 f/1.4 Summilux ASPH, 35 f/2 Summicron ASPH, 50 f/2 Summicron, 50 f/1 Noctilux, 75 f/1.4 Summilux. Contenders so new they are still developing a following: 90 f/2 Summicron APO- ASPH, 28 f/2 Summicron ASPH, 24 or 21 f/2.8 Elmarit ASPH.
-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), October 26, 2001.
So many different types of answers--what exactly do you mean by "signature"?When I got my first Leica, c1968, followed by two more a couple of years later, the 50mm Summicron was The Reason to own a Leica. I personally still believe that, in the modern lineup. The 50mm Elmar was, at that point, a relic joke from pre-available light times, almost a giveaway lens, and I still can't help but think of it as prehistoric. You couldn't buy a Summar because no one seriously considered trying to actually try to sell one, so there were none to buy. Bokeh was. . . well, it wasn't. The 90 Summicron was relative junk compared to Canon and Nikon's LTM offerings (the Canon 85/1.8 blew it out of the water, easily, as did the Nikon 105/2.5), and the lens to really lust after, though no one could think to afford one, was a 21mm Super Angulon, which was the other nearly-unique thing Leica offered. I finally got a 21 about 14 years later by buying an Olympus OM1 and 21 Zuiko for a bit more than the Leitz finder now costs. :-) Even in 1967 the Visoflex made no sense at all, by the way (but the Olympus 50mm macro did, so I got one of those eventually, too), though now I like it quite a bit :-)
-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), October 26, 2001.
As far as a definition of "signature", I guess I meant what Andy said: "most defining of Leica photography." And here is what I mean - - I keep hearing of people preferring certain versions of Leica lenses to other, often, newer versions. I read or am told that the early 50/2 rigid summicrons as well as the 21/3.4 Super Angulon is a "classic" Leica lens. Some people feel that the earlier versions of the 35/2 summicron (first or third) are the "best." Recently, there was a spate of threads regarding some "magical" qualities of the fourth version of the 35/2 summicron, but the latest ASPH is the one that get the wave reviews. And the list could go on. It is all very confusing.Now, I do not think it is a big deal and I am not one who is caught up in equipment -- I think some of the best advise I read here was someone who said in effect "stop obsessing or second guessing your equipment choice and go shoot film" -- but I was wondering if there is a broad consensus that a certain lens made at a certain time is this type of "signature" lens.
-- Stephen York (S.G.York@worldnet.att.net), October 26, 2001.
I don't think one should get overly caught up in the minutae of lens choice.Get lenses that you can afford and that you will use.
For me, this means older used lenses because the current line is just too expensive for me, and because the older lenses are a handier smaller size.
Bottom line is that any of these lenses will allow you to take excellent pictures. The ulimate quality is defined more by you than by them.
-- Pete Su (psu_13@yahoo.com), October 26, 2001.
I think the simple answer is that the newer lenses are generally sharper and have more contrast than the older Leica designs, hence all of the interest surrounding them. BUT, resolution and contrast are not the only factors that produce a quality photograph -- and some of the older lenses produce images with a very pleasing "look" like no others can.
-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), October 26, 2001.
StephenLeicaphiles are nuts, so we tend to classify many Leica lenses as "classics" or "signature". In a way we are right, since in most cases the Leica lenses are just "better" than their contemporaries. Still most people would agree that the 35 and 50mm Summicrons and the 50mm Elmars have to be considered signature lenses of Leica photography. The others are less so but most would accept that the Noctilux is some kind of milestone as is the current 35 f1.4 ASPH. In the R stable the Summicrons are also very good and the 180mm APO telyt (and now APO-Elmarit) and the 100mm APO Macro Elmarit are acknowledged "best of their kinds".
Still, many Leica users consider virtually all Leica lenses to be signature or classic lenses. This makes no real sense, but often neither does Leicaphilia.
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), October 26, 2001.