Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/06/06

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re:90mm's
From: leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams)
Date: Tue Jun 6 10:21:54 2006
References: <04a301c68901$4d7a6f80$0a01a8c0@MacPhisto> <3.0.2.32.20060605221323.0288de60@pop.infionline.net> <4485A6F0.3030706@waltjohnson.com><B32B97AE-83FE-4156-89FC-1516E3674079@cox.net> <4485B771.6060000@hemenway.com>
 
At least I got one good response about a Fat 90. Next time I won't bother
asking.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Hemenway" Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: 90mm's


> Steve:
>
> You may remember Marc's last diatribe against bokeh... the post where he
> said that it's not quantifiable and therefore not relevant?
>
> I will probably go to hell for this. Marc will undoubtedly call down a
> curse on me which will be appropriate for this 666 day... and biblical
> in its fury.
>
> http://www.rollei-gallery.net/mjs/folder-6626.html
>
> Notice the "smooth" bokeh in "Complacent Dove March 2004"  ;-)
>
> Jim, "Now saying his prayers" Hemenway
In reply to: Message from leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams) ([Leica] Re: 90mm's)
Message from msmall at aya.yale.edu (Marc James Small) ([Leica] Re: 90mm's)
Message from walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson) ([Leica] Re: 90mm's)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Re: 90mm's)
Message from Jim at hemenway.com (Jim Hemenway) ([Leica] Re: 90mm's)