Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/06/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>And I never made such a claim anyway,
>except maybe when it is the same lens in different wrappers, such as the 90
>Elmarit or the 135 Elmarit.
That's my point, Eric. You can't even make that case. In fact, you can't
compare the exact same lens in either M or R version that undergoes any
change whatsoever. But, we try, and for most of us, that's the fun of it.
The saving grace is that *most* good lenses are beyond the ability of *most*
of us to evaluate under *most* circumstances.
The darndest things influence and establish our feelings and biases toward
equipment. Quick example: Shooting with my "normal" lens on the M6, the 35
Summicron, for which I have nothing but affection, when the vision of a
particular shot hit me. It required shooting directly into the sun. The
result was exactly what I wanted, EXCEPT there was a big old double
reflection of the aperture in the shot. A flare phenomonon or the result of
the B+W uv filter on the lens. Almost assuredly the latter, but now I have a
doubt in my mind. So now the nagging thought of whether the 35/1.4 ASPH
should be my next "absolutely necessary" purchase creeps into my head. We
humans are a strange lot.
--
Roger Beamon, Natural History Interpreter & Photographer
Docent: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
INTERNET: beamon@primenet.com