Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ken: For what it may be worth, you might be interested in how David Ruether rated the Micro-Nikkor(s) http://camera.trump.net.au/ruether.htm I've been shooting some chromes with my new, (to me) f2/50mm Summicron-R on an SL. I'll have to try some pairs with it and my 2.8 Micro-Nikkor to see if I come up with similar results. Maybe there'll be twice as much Nikon stuff up for sale. Jim ken@iisaka.org wrote: > > All, > > I'm doomed. > > I showed a few rolls of Provia F transparencies to my wife, some of which were taken using my Micro-Nikkor 55mm 1:2.8 with a Nikon F3/T body, and the rest were taken using the Summicron-R 1:2/50mm and an SL2 MOT body (without the motor :) > > Without a loupe, my wife picked out the Leica transparencies with 100% accuracy. The reason? The brilliant colour and the "snap" to the images. Let me repeat, she picked them out with 100% accuracy without a loupe. > > Both lenses were made in the mid-80's. The major difference appears to be in the way how Leica glass/body handles stray light. Both suffer from ghosting when the sun is in the frame, but there is so little veiling flair with Leica glass. I hadn't noticed the difference when I was taking BW pictures, and the great majority of photographs I take had been BW. Maybe there was a reason why I didn't enjoy taking colour photographs... > > Well, all of this was obvious to you for years, and I learn from mistakes I make. This will concretise my plan to put my Nikon gear and older Leica lenses (DR Summicron and Elmarit 90mm) up for sale. > > It's your fault! > > :-)