Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:44 AM 2/12/99 +0100, you wrote: >Doesn't the tripod kind of defeat the purpose? You could have used >stepped down summicrons or elmarits in those circumstances... Sure, but I wanted sharp pictures, not really any kind of test. I guess I could have shot them hand held, but at 1 second (I was using ISO 400 film) or so, I'm not sure I would have any "readable" results. I was shooting, not testing. The comparison was just a side benefit. >Is the alternative more or less sharpness or the ability or not to shoot >handheld pictures at EVx with ISOxxx film ? Both, I think. >Comes my main question: does the 35mm at f1.4 allow to shoot handheld >with as much darkness as the 50mm at f1, the wider angle allowing a >slower shutter speed? I don't think so. I can hold a 50 and a 35 at about the same speeds regardless. So the extra stop is significant, I guess. The picture of the Empress hotel with the moon would have not been the same with any other lens. That was hand held at f/1. I was surprised it came out as good as it did. And no coma to speak of because I didn't have specular lights at the edge. But a Canadian flag was blurred from flapping in the high winds. I'll get it posted eventually. >And another question: isn't focusing MUCH more reliable for the 35mm at >f1.4 than for the 50mm at f1 ? Not that I noticed. Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?