Dear J-
They talk about the expense of the last ten percent — that is, the most expensive part of any pursuit is getting that last ten percent of quality; should you be able to convince yourself that ninety is pretty darn good, you can save yourself a ton of dough. Consider high-end audio; the people that lose sleep over the lossy compression of MP3s are probably the ones who still have turntables hanging around (or in other literally suspended situations) somewhere.
So too with photography; for a given amount of money you could buy a crapload of cheap lenses (I’ve done that) or, as I’m discovering now, you can train yourself to know one lens intimately (now nearly four months with the 35mm Elmarit and I’m only now thinking I’ve got it dialed in fairly well) and get the best effects — or the desired picture — from it. My example is the first version of the 35mm Elmarit (with Series VI filters); indeed, it comes with but a single metering cam, meaning that it was released at the time of the original Leicaflex SLR, and never received an update from Leica for compatibility with any of their later models.
There’s a soft-focus effect at f/2.8, wide-open. It’s not displeasing, unless you’ve got some lights scattered at the edges of the picture — then they tend to coma and look downright odd — a couple of stops down and most of that disappears. But it’s an Elmarit, and it’s a Leica, meaning it lives most of the time at f/2.8. For the subjects I photograph, that makes it perfect. Depth of field is reasonable wide-open, so focussing via the E-1’s viewfinder isn’t too difficult. What sells it to me, though, is the rendition of the out-of-focus highlights; I’ve gotten used to (via the Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 and pretty much all the Nikkors I’ve used) seeing specular highlights rendered as round blobs with bright edges. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI-S (original version, not the compact later design) I hung on the camera before does downright evil things to the out-of-focus areas, even though there’s no denying how the contrast and sharpness pop.
It’s not the greatest lens, resolution-wise, and it’s probably far outclassed by modern zoom designs. The focussing throw is long and slow, and it’s been replaced and then discontinued by the parent company. Yet I finally understand why and what folks talk about when Leica lenses are referred to with reverent tones; it’s a lens that rewards the photographer by making them look far more talented than they deserve. And the cost? You tell me what’s more expensive: cheap lenses that never get used, or moderately pricey (and Leica R lenses are reasonable secondhand) lenses you drag out every day to capture your memories?
Mike
Dear J- 