Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/13/04 9:30 PM, "Mike Quinn" <mlquinn.mail@earthlink.net> wrote: > I think it's too much coffee... > Try it in good light at 1/500 (without the strobe) and see if it still > looks soft. > > On Apr 13, 2004, at 3:06 AM, eric wrote: > >> Images always seems a bit too soft (well, yes compared to the razor >> sharp >> 60mm), but I like deadly sharp focus. > >> (snip) >> Any suggestions? - I try to shoot the 90mm at 5.6. I am usually using >> strobes, so shutter speed is 1/100. > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information It's just a tricky question because not only are we comparing the 90 Summicron APO ASPH M against the 90 Elmarit M but we've got the 100 macro R thrown in as a curve ball to skew any argument to pieces. I've extensively shoot the 90 Summicron APO ASPH M with the 90 Elmarit M with Balcar studio strobes and I'd not dream of shooting them at anything close to f 5.6. Or I just never have. I'm usually at f11 where it is plenty sharp and I've less a chance of missing my focus. I have a hard time telling the difference between the two 90's; I use them both on two bodies at the same time at these middle f stops. At f 2.8 the Summicron would win out over the Elmarit but you'd not be using strobes very likely at f 2.8. If you wanted to see the difference you'd be using a solid tripod and slower films. The 90 APO Asph is of the most modern line of Leica lens design technology. The other lenses represent slightly older generational technologies of Leica lens design. Not an issue with normal handheld photography or shooting at f11 with studio strobes though. The 100 is a macro lens optimized for close in and flat field as a macro is supposed to be. It might be harder to focus at middle distances with the short throw. And it is used with a groundglass and mirror for better or worse. I think the 60 is a different focal length from a 90 or 100 and therefore a direct comparison is not possible to be made. I'd kill for one because of the focal length among other things but not because I'd think it would clearly win out over the 90 or 100's in the clarity of the pictures it would produce in middle f stops or else ware. I severely doubt it would. A 90 or 100 is a lens with some throw. Some grabbing power. A 60mm is cropped normal (50mm). A formalized hyper corrected normal in this case and in this case optimized for macro. Perfect for me. I just shot a few hundred captures or whatever you want to call it of a red headed model in my "studio" on the white backdrop. I used the 60 macro Nikkor the whole time. But at 1.5 it becomes a 90. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon New-improved http://rabinergroup.com/