Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Each little part comprises the whole. >What harm an additional piece of information? Because it's pretty useless. So what, who cares what the optimum aperture of the lens is? I sure don't. I USE my lenses, not try to prove how sharp they are. If that calls for it being used wide open, then I'll use it wide open. Leica lenses have the advantage of being truly useful wide open. Because one lens has 4 more lp/mm performance at f/5.6 over its rival is no big whoop to me. I use Leica lenses. I've used the rest. I prefer Leica lenses. I'm much more interested in how they work, not how the competition compares. And you missed my point on the 19mm lens, it seems. I didn't say anyone should believe me as one voice, but if everybody is universally positive about this lens, that's something worth accepting as most likely true. Of course nobody knows until they use it. But who cares if it's optimum aperture is 5.6. It's a 2.8 lens. If it doesn't work well wide open, why pay for all that? What good is a reference point of little practical value? And when you have each individual conducting the tests, how is anyone else to know they carried out the procedures properly. That would lead to a whole lot of very, very dull reading having to wade through descriptions of their process of testing. The LUG would become a forum that sounds like optical engineers, not photographers. - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch There Are No Great Men, Just Men That Do Great Things. Smith Wigglesworth, from along time ago