Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 6:12 PM +0200 4/13/05, Douglas Sharp wrote:
>Mark and Phil,
>I've been using both lenses and some others for the past 10 days,
>about 1100 macro and normal shots so far, and the Leica just isn't
>up to the quality of the Yashica for what I'm doing.The other Leica
>lenses used for larger flower shots, Summicron 2/35 Summicron 2/50,
>28mm have all been spot on, as have a Zeiss 1,7/50 and a Pentax
>2,5/135mm.I don't think I have a "focus blindness" on this one
>particular lens, particularly considering the fact that it has
>mostly been used at f16 or f22. Focussed wide open and then stopped
>down to the working aperture. Even with a viewfinder magnifier the
>results probably wouldn't be any better. I think the flower pictures
>prove the point. If not, the focus chart shots may.
>And to be quite honest about it, I'll stick with the lens that's
>producing the best results.
>cheers
>Douglas
I only used the 100/4 once, many years ago and at that time thought
it was excellent. My standards of comparison at the time was the
105/4 micro Nikkor, which I still feel is better than any of the
Nikon 2.8's that came after and the 105/4 macro Hexanon. I thought
the Elmar, the Nikon and the Hexanon were comparable, with the Leica
giving better colour reproduction. I also had a 65 Elmar (2nd, black
version) at the time and it gave essentially identical results to the
100 Elmar.
For the images to look this poor on screen means to me that the lens
is not up to standard. The Yashica, as most other Japanese macro
lenses of the time is a very good lens, but it should not really look
noticeably 'better' than the Elmar. I think you got a dud.
--
* Henning J. Wulff
/|\ Wulff Photography & Design
/###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
|[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com