Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] long lens tests
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" <peterk@lucent.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 18:51:33 -0800

And if he stops short you will sufficate.

> ----------
> From: 	Eric Welch[SMTP:ewelch@ponyexpress.net]
> Reply To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Sent: 	Saturday, February 20, 1999 7:51 PM
> To: 	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: 	RE: [Leica] long lens tests
> 
> At 02:48 PM 2/20/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >	Unless you have analysed these side by side with the same films at
> >the same apertures it would be a gut feel more than anything else.
> 
> I'd trust 40 years plus experience over most people's tests any day of the
> 
> week. Sometimes people can do the analysis of the laboratory performance
> of 
> a lens and yet they couldn't take a decent picture to save their lives. 
> What gives them the ability to determine for the rest of us what is going 
> to be useful in the field?
> 
> Actually, any of those lenses would meet anybody's standards if they 
> weren't being compared side by side, I suppose. So it's academic, unless 
> there is field experience with both or all three lenses that the person 
> then comes back and says "I prefer this lens for this reason." And sure it
> 
> will be subjective. It's insane to pick a camera line for their 400 2.8 
> unless that is the primary lens to be used. Otherwise, it ought to be 
> picked simply because it fits on the dang cameras I own.
> 
> So you are right, people who use the lenses will have the advantage. Ted
> is 
> one of those people.
> 
> Eric Welch
> St. Joseph, MO
> http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
> 
> The Devil whispered behind the leaves, It's pretty, but is it Art?   - 
> Rudyard Kipling
>