90mm 20 chrome vs black

[raker]

> Peter:

Thanks for your support. You understood exactly why a potential consumer for quite a lot of money would be asking questions about two supposedly identical products, though manufactured with different materials and with a weight difference of 40%! I'm sure somebody buying a Corvette would ask a lot of questions if different color Corvettes had a chassis made out of different materials, and weighed 40% more!! As for the advice I keep getting to simply go out and take pictures, well, that's a little difficult to do before buying the lens!

I did write to John van Stelten, focalpointlens.com, who repairs Leicas, and he had the following to say, for your information:

"It is a tradeoff, in that brass will give you a smoother focus helical for a much longer period of time, but also weigh more. Aluminum is not as durable, but it is lighter, although I wouldn't say the aluminum that Leitz and now Leica uses isn't durable, but not that durable, it is just that simple. Also the aluminum will remain smooth in its focus as long as you get it serviced more often, and try to keep it out of poor environments."

At least for me, the answer seems pretty clear: if you can stand the weight, the chrome version made of brass seems to be the way to go.

Regards,

R. Aker

 

[gfoto]

>John van Stelten, focalpointlens.com, was quoted: >> >>"It is a tradeoff, in that brass will give you a smoother focus >>helical for a much longer period of time, but also weigh more.

So basically, if you are a backpacker or cyclist and need to account for every ounce, you should avoid the brass lens. Otherwise, what is the big deal. Either way (weigh?) we are not talking about RB67 tonage, we are talking about small RF lenses. Michael Eric Berube GoodPhotos.com

 

[agp]

Sorry - no criticism was of Ronnie was intended. As it happened, the reply by Peter_n has been useful. I have a 24, 35 and 90, and couldn't afford a 50 as well (I couldn't really afford the opthers, either!). His reply made me look at the Konica, and on photographyreview.com they ALL get top marks! So I'm going to try to pick up a Konica 50. I assume that they work fine on a Leica M?
Good luck to Ronnie - enjoy taking the pictures.

 

[ted_grant]

Hi Andrew quite right! It's a stupid topic for people who take pictures period! Certainly for those of us who've done so in every kind of weather condition and temperature you can imagine. M4's at the North Pole in March and the desert of the Mid-East in June, or the humidity in the jungles of Malaysia in August and never a thought of the nonsense in some of these posts. Sounds like these people are far more interested in techie silliness than taking better pictures.

ted

 

[Colin645]

I agree with everyone who has suggested that durability isn't an issue regardless of the materials. Maybe I misunderstood the reason for the discussion in the beginning. If you choose a brass lens, it will be 'chrome'; if you choose an 'aluminium' lens, it will be black'. Surely the real question needs to be what colour do you want? Presumably one buys the chrome or black body based on preference. I personally think that a 'silver' lens on the silver body looks good. I also believe that the "exterior" of the lens is more resistant to cosmetic wear in chrome.(just like the bodies)
I am not the right person to ask regarding weight, as I routinely backpack with my Contax 645; 2 lenses,etc plus my M6 and 4 lenses. I am also only weeks away from being 60 and certainly no jock! (backpacking equates to hiking and mountaineering ).

 

[raker]

I am amazed by some of the responses to my perhaps naive question about a (in one case) forty percent weight difference between the chrome and black versions (which is still an enormous difference, especially if you multiply it in a several lens system, so it's not just about color). "Stupid", "Techie Silliness", etc. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this forum, which in my perhaps poor understanding was to discuss all things Leica. I thought perhaps that some of you with a lot of real life experience actually using Leica could give me some guidelines choosing what, for me, is very expensive equipment (and thanks to those who have given me some guidelines). And if taking pictures is all that counts, why are these people writing comments in this forum, and why aren't they all taking pictures full time instead? And don't you need tools to take pictures? So tools are perhaps important, if not primordial. As I've also stated, I think it would be difficult for me to take pictures with a future acquisition prior to its acquisition (I am at present taking pictures with a non Leica camera, two SLR bodies, which, with their lenses I find very heavy for my travels, so weight, even if it is 35 mm, is important to me, it may not be important for those of you used to medium format, but it is to me, and I've also owned a Pentax 6 x 7 system in the past). So I would really like to take pictures with a Leica system, but I also need to make sure that I have the right tools at hand. And I really don't understand why some people need to make personal attacks, instead of objective commentary. If you don't think the discussion is relevant for your needs, you don't need to follow the discussion, no? Why stoop so low? I have to say that my limited experience of the Leica Forum so far has (with some positive exceptions) left a rather bitter taste in my mouth.

 

[hektor]

Dear Ronnie,

This topic has, as you have suggested, gone a bit off track. I have used both black and chrome lenses extensively for over thirty years. I have both the chrome and black 1:2/90 Summicron and can assure you that even after extensive use neither shows any sign of wear.

Unless you really need the speed I would suggest the f/2.8 lens for size and weight.

Sorry to hear your disappointment with the Forum. It seems that some people take different points of view personally.

Regards,

Justin

 

[jgea]

Ronnie,
Don't get discouraged. The discussion has been obviously widely followed, and I am sure many people have found it informative. (I know I have). My experience at the Leica forum has been very favorable-- many nice people around ready to share information.
I agree with you: "Discussing all things Leica" seems a broad enough "mission statement" for the forum, and there is no reason to tell anybody what they should do with their money or their time. Good luck with your choice!

Juan

 

[raker]

> Justin and Juan: Thanks for your feedback. The thirty year experience > with both black and chrome versions is very helpful. I may go for the > black version after all (since more lenses are available in black only, > such as the new 28 mm f/2 ASPH). Thanks again.

Regards,

R. Aker

 

[tbc]

Incidentally, have Leica ever > made a bad lens?

Depends on one's criteria. Compared with another Leica lens of the same vintage, you would see a 50mm 2 Summar as bad compared to a 50 Elmar, for instance. There could be other lenses of the same vintage from a competitor, 50 2 Zeiss Sonnar, for ex&le, that some might say is better. But if you had a SM Leica and wanted a high speed lens then, you'd probably not say the 50 2 Summar was bad. Obviously, a newer lens will be better than an older one. We are only talking about sharpness, color correction and correction of aberrations. Some may prefer the look of an older lens, that's another point (Bo-keh, out of focus images). I use 3 1950's era Leica lenses. 50 2.8 Elmar. A very good lens, I am satisfied with the sharpness. 90 4 Elmar. Sharp, even at f/4 in the center. Maybe more prone to flare than modern lenses. Also satisfied with sharpness. 135 4.5 Hektor. Better stopped down, not as sharp as the previous 2. Not a lens I use all the time, I prefer other glass on an SLR that is a later vintage. Chrome vs black? Cosmetic appearance and weight are the only factors. Personal choice. All 3 lenses I have are chrome, the M-body I use is black. I am not concerned with this mismatch at all, someone else might be.