It's a nice lens. I forget which frames it activates. Most people tend to prefer the 35 framelines for 40mm lenses. It's a great lens for the money, but there are a lot of great lenses in that price range. I wouldn't go out of my way to acquire one though - I don't think it's that special. If you have a good 50 or 35, just stick with that.
I've got one that I've sent for repair, that I intend to use on M8. From everything I've read, it's as good as the 35 Summicrons (pre asph). It'll probably bring up the 50 mm framelines, but you could modify it to bring up 35 instead. Don't know how, though.
It seems to go cheap, so don't pay too much even if it's good! I'll probably get mine on thursday. While the M8 is 1.33x crop, I won't be able to tell about corner issues. But the rest...
Edit: Kosmoskatten, send me a PM if you're interested in a 35/2 Summicron for 3k SEK. There's a guy here wanting to sell me one, but I'm more into a 28 for the moment.
I am somewhat but not overly interested in the lens. If it is any good I see it as a very small and wide normal that would take very little space in the bag. If it brings up the 50mm frame lines it is ok, I don't mind getting a little more than the frame lines suggest.
It turned out the 40mm is sold with a Leica CL and I would not consider the price a bargain.
Makten: I am not to keen on the 35mm lenses - I prefer wider but thanks for the suggestion.
After browsing a lot of photos on Flickr, taken with the 40/2 Summicron, I have decided it is not for me. I don't really like the look, how it draws an image. Pity, it is very light and compact.
The look of the Summicron 40/2 is almost the same as the 35/2, which has a great reputation for the way it draws in prints. My experience of them both confirms this and I think the 40/2 compares very favourably with the 50/2 as well.
How you think you can make decisions about what a lens is like by looking at Flckr images is beyond me.
wolfloid wrote:
How you think you can make decisions about what a lens is like by looking at Flckr images is beyond me.
I don't get this comment.
Of course I would not rely entirely on web images prior to a purchase but they can absolutely give a good indication of lens character. In the case of the Summicron 40/2 I browsed well over a hundred images on Flickr and I found almost no image that was compelling in the way it draws an image. On the contrary I found that (with the exception of two images) this lens is surely not for me.
As most modern lenses are "sharp enough" I am looking for other qualities, qualities that you can't read from an MTF graph. Looking at numerous images on the web (some are low quality - but they are not a major influence in the assessment) gives an indication on how the lens draws an image. On Flickr I get to see images taken close up, at far distances and in some cases full frame and wide open.
Some lenses that other rave about, like the Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2, I don't like at all. And that is based on images on the web showing its character, like the OOF rendering.
After twenty years of working as a printer at various labs I have tried and printed images from most every lens there is - some are amazing and some are hype. This has given me some sense of how to evaluate a lens not only from prints, but from web images as well - given that they are well executed of course.
How do you work it? Buy and try? I used to do that but quickly found that it was costly and time consuming and the actual findings actually mirrored that of going by "lens tests" and photos on the web.
In the case of the 40/2 Summicron the jury (in my head) has been out a long time and never reached a verdict. I have printed images from this lens but always thought it looked so so. My least favorite lens on Leica M was the 50/2 Summicron and I was wondering of the 40/2 was more or less like it as I can't recall exactly what it was I didn't like about the 40/2. The 50/2 Summicron is a bit bland - to me.
How you can dismiss web images as part of the equation when trying to evaluate lenses is beyond me.
I would say that there is very little connection between screen image and how the lens will reproduce on paper. Almost no connection. This, of course, is even more the case if there has been some post processing, with contrast, colour balance, grain, sharpness, presence, clarity adjustments etc. etc., all you are doing is judging a photographer's processing skills, which will all be different. Even large scale pixel peeping, without manipulation, wont give you what you want if you are going to print, so yes, you have to try a lens out and print from it yourself.
Of course, if you don't want to print, but you do want to know the range of post processing possibilities of a lens, then flickr might help.
You are, of course entitled to your opinions, but really, so many brilliant photographers have made this lens sing, because they know how to work with light, they can work well with this focal length, and either they know how to print or they know a good printer.
If you are complaining about its 'drawing', then maybe you ought to look at how you are working with it.
wolfloid wrote:
"The 50/2 Summicron is a bit bland - to me."
You are, of course entitled to your opinions, but really, so many brilliant photographers have made this lens sing, because they know how to work with light, they can work well with this focal length, and either they know how to print or they know a good printer.
If you are complaining about its 'drawing', then maybe you ought to look at how you are working with it.
Some people love how the rokkor draws (i do for instance) kosmos does not, some people prefer zeiss over leica (i do), some people prefer soft rendering, others harsh and clinical. Your statements indicate that you think there is one "right" and other "wrong" solutions, I'm not so sure that is very connected to reality. Especially when you are talking to someone with quite some experience in printing, but i digress..
wolfloid wrote:
I would say that there is very little connection between screen image and how the lens will reproduce on paper. Almost no connection. This, of course, is even more the case if there has been some post processing, with contrast, colour balance, grain, sharpness, presence, clarity adjustments etc. etc., all you are doing is judging a photographer's processing skills, which will all be different. Even large scale pixel peeping, without manipulation, wont give you what you want if you are going to print, so yes, you have to try a lens out and print from it yourself.
Of course, if you don't want to print, but you do want to know the range of post processing possibilities of a lens, then flickr might help....Show more →
Actually, what you see on screen is the closest indicator of what you'll see on paper. The post-processing influences the print every bit as much as the JPEG.
wolfloid wrote:
"The 50/2 Summicron is a bit bland - to me."
You are, of course entitled to your opinions, but really, so many brilliant photographers have made this lens sing, because they know how to work with light, they can work well with this focal length, and either they know how to print or they know a good printer.
If you are complaining about its 'drawing', then maybe you ought to look at how you are working with it.
I have to disagree - it is not how I work the lens - it is how the lens does not work for me that I am worried about.
And, yes, after actually using the lens on the M7 for wedding photography my conclusion was that I loved the camera and the 28 Summicron but the 50 Summicron was ok - but nothing special.
At the time I also used the Contax G2 and with the 45/2 I found the lens snappier in similar shooting conditions whereas I found the Summicron 50 a bit bland. With this I mean the drawing of the image with OOF rendering and subjective "pop". The Contax Planar could be a bit high contrast but worked well for me where as the Summicron 50 lacked that "pop" but worked well in contrasty lighting conditions.
Back then I had unlimited access to professional printing - being in the business myself at that time - so I was rather picky with the lenses and with proper printing much could be done but with some lenses you did not have to do much in post pro. The Summicron 50 did not work for me. It was a good lens - but not stellar in my book. You can like as much as you want but you can't tell me I should work it differently to like it - it didn't suit me.
As for the Summicron 40/2 - which this thread was all about - I was asking opinions as I have very limited knowledge of the lens and that I had hopes it would be better than the Summicron 50.
I have shot a roll or two with the Summicron 40/2 on the Leica CL - but it was more than a decade ago and I didn't loupe the slides/negatives to evaluate the lens itself as I was not interested in the camera for myself but was trying out a trade in camera for function.
As for Flickr browsing:
The postprocessing if done correctly is something that does _not_ hide lens character. Since you haven't even seen the pictures I have evaluated to come to this conclusion I think your remark is pretty much off target. Not everyone does a poor job uploading images though there is a lot of poor ones to sift through. Working in photo laboratories since the late eighties I can assure you I have seen my share of images in all types of media: paper, canvas, printed in books and with time I have developed a certain sense of how to interpret even web images. You might want to look at your own evaluation skills before dismissing others.
On the tangent that is developing... I had the 50 M Summicron (latest version) and while it was a very solid lens, it was just a lens to me. The Summicron was sharp, and even across the frame, and I had no problems using it wide open, but it just was kind of there. Not that that is a bad thing - very solid, no complaints. It did flare a every once in a while which was annoying.
wolfloid wrote:
"The 50/2 Summicron is a bit bland - to me."
If you are complaining about its 'drawing', then maybe you ought to look at how you are working with it.
wolfloid,
I don't think Henrik complained. He expressed an opinion and in a quite humble way to that.
For you statement about what we see on screens and how images print I don't really get you. My prints are very close to what i see on screen. I don't know how I would PP them if this wasn't the case.
Sometimes the colors and levels are a bit off and then I need to recalibrate the monitor and the printer. How the lens draws; how it handles highlights, flary situations, "sharpness" and bokeh - all that isn't changed making the print.
I also have the same experience as many other have; looking at a lot of images, here, at Flickr and pBase, gives me a quite impression of a lens' abilities.
