Re: [Leica] Re: SHARPNESS cont.

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Eric Welch wrote:
> 

> 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

I saw some slides in Denver a few months back at the LHSA meeting taken
with a 19 that were apparently not taken at optimum aperture as they
directly compared unfavorably with a 21. I think the 21 was not even a
new one. A house in England with a moat? was taken with a variety of
lenses and at the end with say the whole moat with the 19 at the expense
of the blacks of the image which were all washed out. (at the expense of
the d max?) It sold me on not getting the 19 (and a R8 to shoot with
it). I'm just going to get a 24 and that will be my wide end. So I'll
have add a 24 to my 35 50 90 arsenal... and also add the new 135.