philber
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Jim Schemel wrote:
Philber - the last 2 look very abstract.How do you like the Summilux?
-Jim
Very nice trio form your local festival, Jim!
I find the Summilux worth the money. I don't buy lenses for their flawlessness, meaning, for what they "dont do" or at least "don't do perfectly", but for what they actually "do". So what does the Summilux "do"? It delivers a phenomenal amount of information and detail, and does it with an elegant and classy, some would say "unstressed" style. There is much less emphasis on micro-contrast than with a Zeiss ZM, so the odds of the picture being "beautiful" are IMHO higher. Technically, it requires very precise focusing indeed, definitely more so than other lenses of comparable focal length, like the Leica Elmarit R 60 or the Contax G 45, probably even more so than the longer G 90. Before I bought it, I tried the Summarit and Summicron 50. The first one was definitely all right and nice, but did not get into the "special" category in what matters most to me (colours, volumes, detail), which is a must at the Leica price level. The Summicron produced some lovely shots, probably in a more "artsy" way than the 'Lux, but equally delightful. But in other shots, the shots were just not that appealing. Also, it displayed some onion-ring bokeh, which I really don't like. So, again, not at that price.
The 'Lux feels a bit softer than it might wide open, though it could be a learning curve issue. It is pushing me to try new things, because I feel that it "can", and I like that.
I just cannot imagine that I would fall in love with the new 'Cron, which I should try out in a couple of weeks. If it is better than the 'Lux, it will need really good shooting technique to get the best out of it, and sometimes, I just don't want to bother...
|
