I would like to add that I do not dispute that a lot of photographers have made the Summicron 50 "sing". I have seen plenty of images that I have been awestruck by that have taken with much lesser equipment.
It is just that I do not want that lesser equipment myself.
As for the 40/2 Summicron I find that no matter how many photos I see taken with it I just feel it doesn't do "it" for me and that many other lenses (like the Voigtländers) would do a better job. Maybe it is the focal length that is putting me off a bit as I have never been keen on the 35mm lenses and that "look" that they produce. The 35mm focal length is boring to me. Still - many a great photographer has taken awesome photos with it - it is just that I don't care for that particular focal length myself I find it neither here nor there.
But, the Voigtländers sure look nice.
Anyway, I have a ZM 50 Planar coming my way (still waiting) and I am hoping it will do "it" for me and I have some hope for it based on what I have seen so far, on the internet - and in print.
kidtexas: yes, your input is right on the target with what I feel about the Summicron.
JonasB: yes, I agree. If you cannot match your screen to the prints you are getting and vice versa or if you cannot estimate the look of an image you are doing something wrong. That was sort of my point.
That colors/contrast/gamma and pretty much everything can be off still doesn't hide (to a certain degree) the characters of a lens. I usually give lenses the benefit of a doubt when looking at web images but with some uploaders on Flickr you can tell that they know how to work their images and if you browse their photos with various lenses you can certainly assess a lens on a fair basis as it will be more evident in these photographers portfolios.
I wasn't suggesting that when doing your own processing you can't get a decent estimate of how how your processed image will look when you print it - of course it will, if you have calibrated your system effectively, and you know what you are doing.
I was saying that whatever post-processing others have done with their image on Flickr it will be a veil over whatever drawing character a lens has - depending on all the adjustments they have made. That is why you can't tell the character of drawing.
You would need to see identically unprocessed images of the 40/2 or 50/2 and compare them with images from other lenses of the same focal length taken in the same light, under the same conditions in order to compare differences of drawing, to then decide what is the drawing of the lens and what is a sharpening adjustment or a contrast adjustment etc.
This is so obvious and basic and so oft repeated by the likes of Sean Reid in his tests and Mike Johnston ad nauseum, and many others, I wonder why I'm even bothering.
I think you overstate the difference and come over as overly arrogant and condecending, without there being any reason for you to be on a high horse. I think I'll just put you on my ignore list, and save the hassle of another angry man on the internet.
wolfloid wrote:
(...)
This is so obvious and basic and so oft repeated by the likes of Sean Reid in his tests and Mike Johnston ad nauseum, and many others, I wonder why I'm even bothering.
Well, maybe you are trying to help?
Unfortunately you word yourself in a way obviously putting some of us off. "...beyond me." is, for example, not a good way to discuss things. I also got an impression you actually said you find images on screen not matching prints. It's not strange you get reactions.
EDIT: ulrikft was quicker than me. Strong words. Hmm. I don't like Ignore lists. But I like friendly conversations...
"I also got an impression you actually said you find images on screen not matching prints. It's not strange you get reactions."
I did, which out of context sounds wrong, but in context it is not - I was talking about other people's Flickr images. Particularly at the low resolution of those images posted for the web.
wolfloid wrote:
I did, which out of context sounds wrong, but in context it is not - I was talking about other people's Flickr images. Particularly at the low resolution of those images posted for the web.
Well, maybe we just look at things differently. I explained earlier what I think I can learn about lenses by looking at images at Flickr and pBase and here. I find some value in them while you do not. Maybe I spent too much time in the meaningless "Admirable" thread.
JimBuchanan wrote:
I understand that the 40 Summicron, made for the CL, has a different rangefinder cam slope and thus will have focus inaccuracies on the M cameras.
Confirmed. I just got my 40/2 back from repair, and it doesn't focus properly on the M8, as expected. To close over the whole range, but worse farther away. Due to increasing DOF, the sharpness still increases with distance.
A man with some skills can probably mill down the slope for correct focus, but it'll not be easy.
For stopped down shooting, there's probably no problem since these simple designs often shifts focus forwards upon stopping down.
Oh, and 39 mm filters don't fit. Different thread, while still 39 mm.
