Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> Thanks for caring so much, Steve, but I can take care of myself. And by the > way, Steve, while we're talking about people making fools of themselves - I > didn't post a guess suggesting that the $450 Cosina was a Summicron or > Summilux. Nor would I be enough of a fool to post a scanned image and > suggest that it proves anything about lens quality. ;-) > > Your buddy - B. D. > Dear Bud, Yes I do care about you and hate to see you go through such angst over the high prices of Leica equipment, I agree that this is very offensive to most people. But remember, as offensive as it may be to our sensitivities, there are some people who actually will pay $80,000 for a Porsche because they LIKE them. Oh the horror! They could do the same thing with a Miata for a 1/4 of the price. What possess people to do such things? ....hmmm, I guess they can afford to...depressing. sl > > B. D. Colen continues his anti Leica rant: > > >> Well, ain't that a hoot! Summilux! Summicron! Summaron! Leica! Leica! > Leica! >> And both shots were taken with Japanese glass - one a 50-year-old design, >> the other a modern lens which sells for $489 NEW at B&H. > > <<snip>> >> >> B. D. >> > B.D. > > PULEEZZ, I really hate to see you keep making a fool out of yourself with > your constant anti-Leica stance. This Summilux 50/1.4 shot at f1.4 blows > away Peter's Nikkor and Cosina lenses by any measure you can think of: > > http://www.streetphoto.net/images/im120.jpg > > With apologies to Peter, who takes very good pictures. > > sl > > >> >> OK, folks, here's the results of the Guess The Lens contest. Only one >> person correctly identified one of the lenses, but he matched it to the >> wrong picture. The person who thought one picture was taken with a Summar >> and one with a Summicron had the right idea, but the wrong lenses. >> >> This picture was taken with an early-1950s 50/1.4 Nikkor, wide open at > 1/60: >> http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/marianne-4.jpg >> >> And this one was taken with a nearly-new 50/1.5 Voigtlander Aspheric >> Nokton, wide open at 1/60: >> http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/marianne-5.jpg >> >> The 1/3 stop difference in apertures is insignificant for black and white >> film. The reason why somebody thought the Nikkor picture was exposed less >> is because the Nikkor has significantly less contrast. >> >> As far as delivering detail to the negative, the Nokton is clearly the >> better lens wide-open. However, the Nikkor is kinder to women over 30. > My >> wife strongly preferred all the Nikkor's "portraits" to the Nokton's, >> having no idea which was which. >> >> For those who thought that camera shake or focusing mistakes played a part >> in which lens looked better, sorry, but I don't think so. I shot several >> pictures of two different people with each lens, and the differences >> between the lenses are apparent in all of the shots. One thing about the >> Nikkor is that at this distance, wide open, it has a "hump" of decent > focus >> rather than a sharp "peak" of razor-sharp focus like the Nokton. I focused >> very carefully on an eye in all cases. >> >> Remember, neither picture has any sharpening applied. And all lenses are >> less than perfect at f/1.4, where abberrations abound and the depth of >> field is a whopping two inches. >> >> Perhaps a couple of more pictures will demonstrate things a little more >> clearly. Here's a Nikkor shot of another colleague. This is a full > frame, >> shown for scale. It's is a normal Web-JPEG with curve adjustments and >> sharpening, reduced from my printing >> file: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/susan.jpg >> >> Now here's a detail of just the face with each lens. No size reduction, >> *no* sharpening and *no* curve adjustments. These pictures were both shot >> at 1/30 and f/1.8. Warning: These are approximately 140K files. >> >> Nikkor: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/susan4-detail.jpg >> Nokton: http://www.2alpha.com/~pklein/temp/susan5-detail.jpg >> >> Anyway, I hope this has been useful to somebody. It's unscientific, may >> not apply to your lenses, and may have been influenced by the moon, swamp >> gas, or the fact that I saw Cirque du Soleil last weekend. BUT it does >> show what these two lenses do, hand held, in available light >> conditions. The differences show up on a 2700 dpi scan, so they're not >> academic. >> >> --Peter Klein >> Seattle, WA >> > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html