Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The E lenes in general were hugely highly respected by those who thought they knew and probably did. The glass was usually first rate. But the mechanics could wear out on you or go out on you. It was plastic inside for sure. When most other glass was metal. And was not plastique. But plastic. Plastics I hear have come a long way. I used an E lens for a million shoots on my white backdrop a 70 - 150 conservative zoom; later switched it for a liberal one (80-210). But I think I used it a few hundred thousand cycles too many. The little hole was not so round. And it had to really be stopped down past f 8 even! f10 and be there! But when done so it excelled! But then what doesn't? It was lightweight and inexpensive. And most importantly... It was THERE! Mark William Rabiner > From: <grduprey@mchsi.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 03:14:21 +0000 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: RE: [Leica] Re:Monster High-tech 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and everyone > else > > > > Dave, > > > Interesting about your 100 Nikon E lens. ?I had one also and it was not > even > close to the performance of my 90 Elmarit R. > > > Gene > > > > -------------- Original message from "David Rodgers" > <drodgers@casefarms.com>: -------------- > > >> Len, >> >>>> It's surprising how good the old glass is though.<< >> >> It's fun and easy to compare lenses on a digital body (and with a D700 >> all the way out to the corners of designed coverage). I have three >> 50/1.4 Nikkors. The oldest is converted AI with a scalloped focusing >> ring. It's very sharp -- at least as sharp as the 50/1.4 AFD. My hunch >> it that the older lens would be more prone to flare, though I haven't >> tested that. OOF areas look different in all three lenses. The 50 AI is >> currently my favorite. It focuses more smoothly than the 50/1.4 AIS and >> IMO has better bokeh than the 50/1.4 AFD. It also is the best looking of >> the three. Plus I like using Classic lenses. :-) >> >> The lens that really surprised me was the 100/2.8E. I can't tell any >> difference between it and the 90/2.8 R that I converted to F mount, and >> it's a little bit shocking. The 100E isn't much bigger than a 50/1.4. I >> never used it much. It felt like a toy and I assumed it performed like >> one. I bought it used for $25 a couple of years ago. I keep doing tests >> comparing the 100E and 90R because my gut says the 100E can't be that >> good. I want it to perform like crap, but it won't! >> >> Another lens that surprised me is a 24/2.8 AIS Nikkor. Years ago I hand >> picked it from 3 samples I tested (film). I dropped it shortly after I >> bought it. The outer focusing ring bent. (Something similar happened to >> my 35/1.4 ASPH M, but Sherry Krauter magically restored it to like-new). >> I assumed the 24 Nikkor was ruined. I put it in a junk drawer. I >> recently tested it for fun and I can't find any problems, optically. >> Focusing still binds at one point. I'm anxious to compare its >> performance to my 28/2.8 Elmarit R that is currently being repaired. >> >> So much has been written over the years about different lenses. I wonder >> just how much is factual. I believe in a few generalities. I believe >> Leica lenses are the standard by with all other lenses should be >> measured. Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not from >> Missouri, but still, I need to see something before I really believe it. >> >> >> Now more pixels just means more peeping, and I think I'm about peeped >> out! OTOH, it's nice to be able to see for myself, without having to >> develop and print (which also introduces more variables). One time I bad >> mouthed a lens. It turns out the lens was fine, but my enlarger was out >> of alignment. When I bought a Zig-align all my lenses improved. I wonder >> if buying a new computer will have similar results. :-) >> >> BTW, I glued 2 Nikkor rear caps together in order to attach two lenses. >> With a third on the body I can carry 3 lenses easily. The 45P Nikkor and >> 100/2.8 together are lighter than the 90/2.8 R, and they take up about >> the same volume. The auto dust removal features in new digital bodies >> makes swapping lenses more practical. I don't find myself swabbing the >> sensor so often. >> >> DaveR >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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