Re: [Leica] Re: Summilux/Noctilux and Tamron

["SonC (Sonny Carter)" <sonc@sonc.com>]

Thanks, Sal, I appreciate your comments.

Interesting that the response about alien glass on a Leica was so
high.  As Mark R. pointed out, if I had been silent about the lens, I
probably could have gotten away with it.  Actually, I have before; the
family portrait at http://www.sonc.com/paw/family.htm was shot using
the same combination, one of my first shots through the Tamron on the
Leica.

I'd love to have the used 'lux 80mm that I know is nearby, or maybe
one of the 90's, but I'm still shopping, and other things take their
place ahead of that.  I bought the R3 because I wanted to improve my
longer focal length shots; I found the M6 and the CL, just don't
perform as consistently with my eye as I would like at 90mm.

As another aside, I got no negative response on my posting of week 31,
which was shot on a Jupiter 9 and a 30 year old Pentax SV.   Amazing.

The only real quarrel I have with the Tamron is that it seems to not
be able to use the R3's spotmeter.  I think that is a problem with the
size of the exit element on the Tamron.  No one has confirmed that
yet.  Stay tuned.

Thanks so much, and I appreciate your comments.

Regards,

Sonny



- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Sal DiMarco,Jr." <sdmp007@pressroom.com>
To: "LUG >for posts" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:14 AM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Summilux/Noctilux and Tamron


> Luggites,
>     For what it's worth, I have to agree with Erwin's assessment in
the
> Summilux/Noctilux question. I came to the same conclusion years ago,
just by
> shooting pictures with both lenses.
>     At one point in my sordid career as a photojournalist, I thought
I would
> dedicate an M5 body to a Noctilux for my "no light" camera. A buddy
of mine
> even went as far as to build a frame illuminator light which fit on
the
> accessory shoe.
>     Well, after using this combination for a while, I discovered
because of
> the weight of the lens I could only successfully handhold the
Noctilux at a
> 1/15 sec @ f/1. This means in shooting six frames of something or
someone ,
> I would get three dead bang sharp, two passable, and one useless.
>     On the other hand, I could do the same thing with the Summilux
at an 1/8
> @ f/1.4, which is the same exposure. Plus, I thought the Summilux
snaps were
> a little sharper. I guess those few extra millimeters of depth of
field
> helped.
>     While everyone was jumping on Sonny Carter for his Tamron lens
photo,
> most of you forgot it is a very nice photo. It is the picture that
counts
> PERIOD. What you shot it with is MEANINGLESS.
>     A good photo shot with a Coke bottle lens is still a good photo.
A bad
> photo shot with your favorite Leica, Zeiss, Schneider lens is still
a bad
> photo.
>     Anyway, back to Tamron... Over a decade ago, I don't remember
exactly
> when. I was asked by Tamron USA to test their 80-200mm f/2.8 zoom
lens. They
> sent a Leica R4 Mount for the lens, and I used it for about three
months.
> While, I can't say it was better than today's APO zoom, it was an
extremely
> good performer and it was a single ring zoom lens. After, I returned
the
> lens, I decided I wanted it, but is was sold already.
>     Tamron is a very good and innovative company. They were the
first to
> introduce a 28-200mm zoom lens, and they pioneered the technique of
lens
> molding which Leica is using to make many of its ASPH lenses.
> Happy Snaps,
> Sal DiMarco, Jr.
> Philadelphia, PA
>
>
>