Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]SNIP >There's a wonderful clarity to the Summicron image, even though in some >ways it appears a bit *soft.* What's remarkable is that the detail is >crisp under high magnification, but that the whole composition has this >ineffable *old* Summicron look: luminous, astonishing contrast (given the >age of the lens), just a wonderful photographic character. >It's odd. When folk ask me why I like Leica, this is the sort of thing I'd >bring out: fifty-year-old technology. >I'd be curious to know whether other members of the LUG have their own >'reference' images--I'm not talking mere sharpness here, but, rather images >that perfectly capture the gestalt of M or R photography. I have this experience quite often particularly with the M6/current 50/2. I brag about the booooookah but nobody else seems to really care... I've definitely had my best blurs (DOF) with this lens - you know just can't explain it - I shoot now E100VS mostly and this seems to be a frequent delight. What can be said not about a lens' fingerprint in relation to another lens or another make - but between individual lenses (current, for example) of the same? In other words, how much room is there for unique fingerprints between my 50/2 and another's of the same batch? Obviously even with the highest of standards there will be differences however minute. But this is hard to pin down as its not only subjectively complicated but who has tried..umm..20 different 35/2 asph with 20 rolls through each? Or, I guess that's not really so necessary...Can one say, without explicit known variables that 'their' lens has a certain look? In anycase I'd like to believe so. It would make good for excuses and also would facilitate the fun game of "my lens is better than yours".