Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] 90/2.8 R vs. 90/2 R??
From: simon.ogilvie at gmail.com (Simon Ogilvie)
Date: Sat Feb 24 13:14:18 2007
References: <70d5554f0702230552q366f80b6t2cc06e8d170fd0e4@mail.gmail.com> <B2E4747B-99D8-45B0-BEFF-FCFC1FF54473@earthlink.net> <F1F9B5BA-D7B3-4A09-966C-A84335B60B10@charter.net> <1a5f40102106c6ff77adc2b00a5f486c@comcast.net>

Bob,

Have you tried the old trick of printing it left/right reversed and showing
her that one?  People usually prefer shots of themselves to look like
they're used to seeing in the mirror...

Simon.

On 23/02/07, Bob Shaw <rsphotoimages@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> This thing about skin textures is very real.  Believe it or not, I shot
> a B&W portrait of my sister-in-law (probably a mistake in the first
> place) using really soft available light through a window using the R
> Vario Elmarit 28-90 Asph at 90mm.
>
> I stopped it a 5.6 for a little bokeh beginning just behind her ears.
>
> Me?  I was very proud of it.  A really great likeness of her with,
> typical Leica Elmarit gradations using Ilford XP-2 S Super.  Minimal
> Contrast and Brightness adjustments and a very minor crop in Photoshop
> Elements.
>
> Says she hates it.  So I Photoshopped it.  A crease here, a mole there.
>   Nothing draconian.  You know the drill.  She still hates it.
>
> Why?  You got it; too detailed.
>
> I have the portrait in my home office.  I still like it.
>
> But now I know why, years ago, Zeiss came up with their Softar lens
> line, and why a lot of old portrait and Hollywood movie photogs had a
> jar of Vaseline in their Grip Bag.  Imagine cleaning that off the lens
> after the shoot.  Yuk!
>
> Alas...
>
> Oh - one more thing:  The 28-90 stays, dammit!!!
>
> Cheers
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 7:59, Slobodan Dimitrov wrote:
>
> I have to agree with Doug on this difference between the two.
>
> s.d.
> http://sdimitrovphoto.com/
>
>
>
> On Feb 23, 2007, at 6:18 AM, Doug Herr wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:52 AM, Benjamin Marks wrote:
> >
> >> Anyone have a view on the image quality of these two R lenses?  Price
> >> differential (used) these days between the two seems like on the
> >> order of
> >> USD$100/150.  Is the Summicron the same image quality at one stop
> >> faster or
> >> are there substantive differences between the way these lenses render
> >> the
> >> world?
> >
> > The Summicron is not as good as either version of the Elmarit at close
> > range or at full aperture; at normal distances and moderate apertures
> > they're all excellent and it's unlikely you'll see much difference.  I
> > like the Summicron for its gentle treatment of skin at larger
> > apertures, its exceptionally good bokeh and the greater ability to use
> > selective focus.
> >
> > Doug Herr
> > Birdman of Sacramento
> > http://www.wildlightphoto.com
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>

In reply to: Message from benmarks2005 at gmail.com (Benjamin Marks) ([Leica] 90/2.8 R vs. 90/2 R??)
Message from telyt at earthlink.net (Doug Herr) ([Leica] 90/2.8 R vs. 90/2 R??)
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (Slobodan Dimitrov) ([Leica] 90/2.8 R vs. 90/2 R??)
Message from rsphotoimages at comcast.net (Bob Shaw) ([Leica] 90/2.8 R vs. 90/2 R??)