Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/05/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina Manley wrote: >>> As much as I love this lens, and it is one of my favorites, I would have to > say that the 35/1.4 would come closer to a "normal lens" than either the 50 > or the 100. Just the way I see!<<<< Dear Lady, Maybe I didn't express myself clearly, as you well know, I sometimes don't. ;-) I didn't mean the 100 was a normal lens for the R camera, as like you, I find the coverage of the 35mm is closer to how I see the scene before me than any other lens. What I was trying to do, was to have people "look at the 100mm as a normal lens" rather than always as a macro lens. In other words, use it for a greater number of photo situations than they might normally do. It truly is quite a versatile lens, limited only by the imagination of the photographer. One can use it as an excellent scenic/landscape lens, copy, portrait, macro and super macro with a couple of macro adapters attached, or extend it to a medium tele with the aid of a 2X extender. And in each case, cutting film images so crisply sharp one need be careful not to cut fingers when editing . ;-) What triggered the use of the 100 for general photography was due to a photo student showing me close-ups, but complained the lens was too expensive and limited for the few times he used it for macro images only and was going to get rid of it.. He was quite surprised when I suggested the many other uses he could put it to beyond close-ups, as he understood a macro lens was only good for doing macro work. So I figured maybe some LUG folks might have a similar concept. And also that it might make an interesting subject for a Leica Seminar presentation. I've always considered the 35 on both the M and R cameras as a normal lens, more so than the 50mm. And I believe our eyesight coverage corresponds to the 35mm angle than the 50 . Now, hopefully, I've made myself a bit clearer. :-) ted