[Leica] new Puts article

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

I think Erwin usually rewrites of course. As writing is re writing.
This one almost sounds like it ripped it off in a moment of exuberance and
didn't do any re writes. Just a brief checking over of it. Late at night
perhaps and on a roll!
And if something like that was/is the case I say "more power too" em!
Kind of a Blog thingie; the Blog mindset/workaround capturing the
imaginations of this sector of the universe. Including me. It's good to get
that kind of window to where people are at and its good for the people to be
able to express themselves more informally even on more technical material.

I've printed Erwins thing out and I'm going to read it at the kitchen table.
So far I'm skimmed it and read sections.
Normally with Erwin for me: reading is re reading.
But for now from what I read I think I'd like to make this point ahead of
time from my experience.
A "prepoint".
As far as the "overbuilt" thing goes on glass for formats:

I'm sorry this is not Leica but Nikon.
About my favorite lens in the past two years has been the
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor
Which translates 1.5 wise as 35-127mm on my digital D100.
Size wise it's a big lens. It does cover 24x36mm. You can fit about 8 50mm
Summicron into it! :)
I'd sworn off zooms for well over a decade but I'm enjoying it immensely
now. 

35-127mm is not a popular slice of focal lengths. They don't make lenses
like this to buy any more.
A 35-135 was made and of course a 35-105 but these lenses fell out of
fashion and manufacture well before digital set it; people wanting to go to
28mm.
When digital set in in the past 4 years this extended from 28 to 24mm.

But I've shot with this lens as I've said extensively and surprisingly
rarely felt contradicted on the 35mm wide end. When I did and I was
intensively shooting important (I had a camera bag with me) I could always
switch to the 12-24mm. But for most shooting both street and shooting people
for money I'm not a wide angle kind of guy.
35 was fine on the wide end it mainly turned out.

Most of all I felt real good about being able to zoom into 127.5.
I was always grabbing some small angle from across the street or with people
being able to do tight head shots.

But without my 12-24 as a companion lens I didn't feel covered going into a
situation feeling like I could bring home the shot for sure with this
24-85mm lens.
I looked forward to a new lens Nikon was go come out with with the then new
D70.
The 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor.
A DX lens designed for the image circle surrounding the 23.7 x 15.6mm
format. And translated to a seemingly more sensible 28-105mm lens like you
could buy in the store maybe.
In lieu of the oddball sounding 35-127!

I figured a lens made to that smaller image circle had to be noticeably
sharper and compact and lightweight than 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G. I was using all
the time. Which is not DX. (smaller image circle)

When they finally made the 18-70mm without the D70 camera and brought down
the price I ordered one.
But when I put the 18-70 up against my 24-85 side by side I was crestfallen
by the fact that it was it's twin. I looked up the size and weight specs
even. I'd assumed it would be half the size and I'd carry it all over town.
Even though the 18-70 is a DX lens it's the same Size and weight as the full
film frame 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G!

I was disappointed and figured Nikon had to rush the lens out and did not
have time to address issues of compactness.
I remember over the many years of shooting Nikon when ever they'd often come
out with a new version of a lens and it was now more compact and had a
rubber focuser now perhaps everyone said it was an inferior optic. That
you'd be better off with the old one. The one with "room to breath". The
ugly one. I always hoped that was an unfounded rumor because the newer
versions of say the 105 2.5 were so much more cute and spunky than the
previous versions. And with the built in lens hood.
Sound familiar?!:)

In the 80's I did have my dads Contarex with its huge lenses.
Glass in which compactness was not one of the parameters of design.
Only take no prisoners quality and precision.

So Erwin hints to this "overbuilt" thing as a thing they're now taking some
stock in again. If that's the case that explains my non compact 18-70 which
it turns out I now hardly use. But have gone back to using the 24x85 again
instead.

They left it big on purpose and went for the high quality.
Thinking of it that way kind of cheers me up.

But using it it zooms it only to 105 not the 127 of my 24-85.
I found this often frustrating out in the field as I'm yanking on the lens
trying to make it zoom in more.
And the 18-70 distorts like a son of a gun at 18.
And if I find myself shooting around there of anything of any importance
I'll put on the 12-24 again. Which is optimized at 18. Has 18 for breakfast.
The 18-70 kind of makes a mess out of 18.

The lens needed to be bigger.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/