Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: "cc:Mail Note Part"
Hi LUGnuts.
I'm by no means a purist as I'm also a TLR fan. Occasionally I dig out a
Mamiya 330f Pro or a Rollei 2.8E (Zeiss Planar). The only relevance of MF
to this group is the Rollei, which, of course,can be a 35mm. portrait
camera in its own right with a Rolleikin kit. On the rare occasions I have
thought far enough ahead to use the Rollei in 35mm. mode, I have never been
disappointed. After all, an 80mm Zeiss lens is a pretty good focal length
for portraits. That said, you can achieve an effect almost
indistinguishable by enlarging a similar area from a 120 neg. Or on the
Mamiya, you can use the 180mm., which is a totally different experience.
However, back to Leicas and Super Angulons.
I've had the 21/3.4 SA M for a long time. It's one of the greatest, and it
isn't even a Leitz designed lens.
Recently (courtesy of a fellow LUGger) I now have a a 21/4 SA R for my
Leicaflex SL (also non-Leitz. but from the same stable.)
Colourwise there's little to distinguish them. Distortionwise, the reflex
(retrofocus) version is ever so slightly worse than the M version in the
extreme corners.
In the acid test of producing real examples which show off the virtues (and
drawbacks) of these two. they're both excellent working lenses.
Haven't seen too many 21mm MF (or even equivalent) lenses around....
Slan
Alex
Alex Hurst
Waterfall
Nr. Cork
Ireland
Tel: +353 21 543 328 (H)
+352 21 270 907 (W)
Fax: +353 21 271 248
email: corkflor@iol.ie
Home website: http://homepages.iol.ie/~corkflor/
Business website: http://www.flowerlink.com/corkflorists
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Thu, 23 Apr 98 17:26:40 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA06786 Thu, 23 Apr 98 16:21:28 -0700
Received: from mail2.mail.iol.ie by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA06780 Thu, 23 Apr 98 16:21:21 -0700
Received: from [194.125.43.50] (dialup-038.cork.iol.ie [194.125.43.38]) by mail.iol.ie
Sendmail (v8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA13954 for <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>;
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:21:16 +0100
X-Sender: corkflor@gpo.iol.ie
Message-Id: <l03110701b16572b9c733@[194.125.43.50]>
In-Reply-To: <199804232038.AA19384@peugeot.instinet.com>
References: Your message of "Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:21:18 PDT."
<19980423172119.16756.qmail@hotmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:19:58 +0100
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
From: Alex Hurst <corkflor@iol.ie>
Subject: [Leica] Comparing SAs/Big Leicas (very much off-topic)
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:26:46 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA07240 Thu, 23 Apr 98 17:32:05 -0700
Received: from [204.244.104.125] by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA07234 Thu, 23 Apr 98 17:32:00 -0700
Received: from mail.sd91.bc.ca by sd91.bc.ca (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id RAA14387; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:21:45 -0700
Received: from ccMail by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
id AA893377770; Thu, 23 Apr 98 17:29:30 -0800
Message-Id: <9804238933.AA893377770@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 17:29:11 -0800
From: "Administrator"<administrator_at_elec__bus@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Cc: <Administrator@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
Subject: [Leica] Message not deliverable
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
- --simple boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; name="RFC822.TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="RFC822.TXT"
Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
; Fri, 24 Apr 98 00:46:07 -0800
Return-Path: <owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Received: from by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA07943 Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:33:24 -0700
Received: from [204.244.104.125] by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (5.65/KJV)
id AA07909 Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:32:37 -0700
Received: from mail.sd91.bc.ca by sd91.bc.ca (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id SAA14660; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:22:12 -0700
Received: from ccMail by mail.sd91.bc.ca (ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00)
id AA893381400; Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:30:00 -0800
Message-Id: <9804238933.AA893381400@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
X-Mailer: ccMail Link to SMTP R8.10.00
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 98 18:29:14 -0800
From: "Administrator"<administrator_at_elec__bus@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Cc: <Administrator@mail.sd91.bc.ca>
Subject: [Leica] Message not deliverable
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="simple boundary"
Sender: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
- --simple boundary--