Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 1/22/05 6:08 AM, "Christopher Williams" <leicachris@worldnet.att.net> typed: > > > Take a 50/2.8 anyday. > > I could very much tell the difference on print. > > Chris > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Ridings" Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Doomed: Leica MP 0.58x > > >> Chris, >> >> The crappiest lens I have (seen in PS) is the 50/2.8 Elmar. The consumer The f/2.8/4 IF AF-D Nikkor which came out about five years ago is highly criticized and widely now thought of as an unwise buy. I bet they are not making any more of them. The 24-85MM F/3.5-4.5G AF-S ZOOM however which came out more recently and is much cheaper smaller lighter quieter and has a micromoter in it for focusing making it an AF-S lens. Ken Rockwell calls it: ... the best performing midrange zoom I've ever used! It is clearly superior to the 24-120, 24-85 2.8-4, and 28-105 lenses I also bought or tried before I bought this one. Digitally a 1.5 crop turns it into a 36-128mm lens. Perfect for people shooting. I conceptualize it as a 35-135 Leica M frameset lens! To me that's real handy. The way my mind works. It has been the optic I've shot most with over the past two years I hate to admit. This week I got an 18-70 DX lens. Which translate to a 27-105. I think of this one as my Nikon 28-90 frameset lens. I've never had any luck shooting people for event photography wider than 35. For some reason people just don't like being transformed into little mushroom midgets. I have photographer friends in town who successfully stop themselves from absorbing this fact. I think it's kind of self indulgent. I try to limit myself to 35 when people are paying for prints of themselves. Putting on a 28 or wider only in dire cramped establishing shot situations. Then quickly putting the 35 back on again. So the 35-135 translation has worked out well for me digitally and it's a different very nice ballgame, wider with film which it will cover. And I do plenty of my shooting at the most telephoto setting. But 35 is just not wide enough for a commercial situation. To think you're going wade into a situation and have just this lens on your camera and know you are going to get the shot. You need wider than 35. A normal zoom is nowadays most people think of as a 28 to 70 or a tad longer on the long end. Or a 24 to tele more like it. 24 getting to be the magic number which makes the cash register go "Ching" and puts a gleam in the eye of the buying public. With the 18-70 DX lens cropping to a 27-105 I feel like I can walk into anything now and get the shot. It replaces in Leica M shooting the 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90 focal lengths! For lots of people that's a whole set of lenses worth quite a few grand! I think of myself as mainly a Leica - Hasselblad shooter but in my mind the digital work I do now more and more with these Nikon zooms does not embarrasses me. And the 12-24. Far from it. My stack of prints have not taken a turn for the worst. Ten years ago if you told me I'd be doing so much work with zooms, Nikon or otherwise I'd call you a liar and then kill myself. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/