[Leica] Re:News

[don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory)]

Mark,
Interesting monologue.  Today I put some of my 12X18 prints(M8+24 or
35SummicronIV) against some similar sized prints out of a 5D and 16-35.
Mine were F4ish and his were F8-11.  Amazing what detail the Leica's can
produce.  Prints on the table every time.

On 4/9/07, Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/9/07 6:55 AM, "Eduardo Albesi" <eduardoalbesi@ciudad.com.ar> typed:
>
> > I'm sorry, Mark, but I sold the 35/2, 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 and 20-35/2.8L.
> >
> > I'm working (about to start) at the ER. Tomorrow I will try to post
> > some images shot in the studio comparing the 17-35/2.8L to the 28/2.8
> > and 35/1.4L.
> >
> > I never said Canon primes are on the weak side. I have high regard
> > for the 50/1.4 and 1.8, 85/1.8, 85/1.2L(I), 135/2.8 soft focus,
> > 100/2, 200/2.8L, 300/4L. I love primes. One of the reasons why I love
> > my M8.
> >
> > And I am not a bit surprised by this. The super L zooms cost at least
> > as the sum of the primes they replace. Almost all L zooms are newer
> > optical designs, have better mechanical construction assuring better
> > collimation and centration, etc.
> >
> > IMO, I seem to remember that on the Nikkor field, a zoom like the AF-
> > S 17-35/2.8 ED (and a long list of other letters I don't remember
> > anymore) performs at least as good as most of the same age primes it
> > intends to 'replace' at similar apertures. But I don't have any of
> > them anymore.
> >
> > Saluti,
> >
> > Ed
>
>
>
> This outperforming of this and that zoom over this and that prime is a
> popular theme on internet chat groups the blind leading the blind. Rumor
> spreading.
> My Nikon zooms outperform my Nikon primes in the zoom category.
> They zoom better.
> With my primes in order to zoom I have to run back and forth real fast
> taking little steps pretending I'm on roller skates.. It just ain't the
> same. Anything back lit a prime shines and a zoom falls apart. There's
> just
> too much glass in there. And I try to shoot backlit as often as I can.
> Like
> anybody does. Not when I shoot the want adds though. Those are always lit
> from the sides 45 degrees. And its nailed to the wall so not much light
> gets
> in from behind.
> Zooms create standard of the industry images. Nothing wrong with them.
> You see a picture in the paper or magazine it was proably taken with a
> zoom.
> But lets not get carried away. A zoom is a convenience and a convenience
> we
> can live without. Perhaps in many cases SHOULD live without but we're too
> darned lazy.
> The results we get with zooms are just dandy till you  compare them with
> what you get from a single focal length lens in real world shooting
> situations. Not a paper on the wall.
> All my 24mm 2.8 has to do is be good at 24mm. That's its one job in life.
> It doesn't have to be good at 17,18,19,20,21 all the way to 70 or whatever
> it goes to I have all shapes and sizes of zooms.
> Its an unfair comparison to the poor zoom whose just biting off more than
> it
> can chew..
> Amazing the results a zoom gives us.
> But to say it equals or surpass a prime in anything but occasionally dry
> resolution tests like what you get when you shoot a newspaper on the wall
> is
> internet mass stupidity feeding on itself like it certainly does. The
> blind
> leading the blind. People forming their opinions of their gear based on
> what
> they hear and read not by what the do with the gear. Which generally is
> buy
> it on eBay. Read about it on chat groups. Then sell it on eBay with strong
> opinions about all phases of it. With one of them being a reason why they
> sold it.
> No prints.
> Hearsay.
>
>
> None of my Leica m lenses zoom by the way.
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> 8A/109s
> New York, NY
>
> markrabiner.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Don
don.dory@gmail.com