Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Let's go back to the original thread which claimed that a rangefinder cries "fast lenses". This is what I raised in opposition to. That it has fast lenses (35/2 is one example right now) it is true, but have you seen a 135/2 in a rangefinder? 50/ f2.8 is opened enough for a lot of depth of field limitation, just try once not to focus properly and you will see that. Then again 50/1 is handicapped when stopped down. (BTW, does anybody know why the diaphragm on this beast looks like a star when about midway stopped down?). And also it covers a good chunk of your viewfinder. What I said about blurr was, and maybe I have to rephrase it as follows: with an SLR (take Leicaflex,as I don't know about the R8 which you guys claim to be in the same class) you will have more shake due to the mirror than a range finder at the same speed (say 1/8). You have to open up therefor in order to cut on that, so you get reduced DOF. So you get a larger DOF on a rangefinder due to the less shake and handholding at slow speeds. Of course you can get the Noctilux on a rangefinder, open it up in midday and load ISO 25/15 and still have to pull it kes it ain't got anything past 1/1000! Isn't that right? Now you have the ayes (sic) and only the ayes in focus! The truth lies somewhere in the middle. I am sure YOU know this, but some innocents out there are raising an eyebrow to all this babbling. Have to get some sleep, Cheers, Lucian On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Eric Welch wrote: > >What I meant to say was, for example, that if you take even an Leicaflex > >or an R8 adn use a 50/1.4 side by side with an M3 with an 50/2.8, you > >have all the chances to get a better result with the rangefinder. > > There is no reason in the world that this could possibly be true. No way. > Anything (if you aren't concerned with sharpness, thus mirror shake isn't a > problem) that your rangefinder lens can do, the SLR lenses can do, and they > can do more, because they can open up for faster shutter speeds, and more > depth of field control. So the fact is, that 50mm 2.8 lens is quite > handicapped in comparison. > > Eric Welch > St. Joseph, MO > http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch > > Multitasking: Screwing up several things at once... > >