Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This is all very interesting but there's something here I really don't understand. At 07:28 PM 2/15/99 -0600, you wrote: <snipped> >Here goes flame bait.....MOST of Erwin's admittedly superlative >testing is PHOTOGRAPHICALLY useless.....there's NO photographic >difference between ANY Leica lenses made in the last 30 years... >bear with me.....what I mean is on REAL film (>ISO100, preferably >400 for handheld work) at reasonable shutter speeds, HANDHELD, >there is no visible difference. Period. It's like the folks that >can hear differences in line cords on audio amps...bullshit. and then; >I love fast lenses...I already have a new version 90 f2, What I can't understand is- given the above statement, why did you get the new version? If there is no real difference, why didn't you get an older version, say the last pre-aspherical 90/f2 and spend the balance on something like film? I'm not trying to be controversial; I have really been wondering about whether the newer lenses have anything to offer me that would make a difference to my pictures, fast film handheld. Seeking enlightenment. Joe Berenbaum