Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]How can a lens be *too sharp*? If you were presented with a lens touted as "less sharp then its predecessor", would you actually buy it, especially at current Leica prices? I know the argument about creases and pimples etc. Doesn't matter; would you pay good money buying the latest lens from Leica that was guaranteed to be less sharp than another lens? Dan C. At 10:45 AM 17-09-98 +0200, you wrote: >The new 90mm Summicron with every acronym available printed on the >lens barrel is compared to the 100mm Macro lens in the R-range in >Leica's own .pdf file. Seems a bit odd: Several people have commented >on the inappropriateness of the 100mm Macro lens as a portrait lens, >because of it's high resolution and ruthless rendition of even small >skin imperfections. I was under the impression that one of the main >areas of use for the M-mount, 90 Summicron *was* portraiture. Has >Leica designed a lens that is *too* good? > > >M. >