Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug, Actually I have made the comparision - between your prints, which I have a few and John Shaw (Nikon and 200-400, 500) and Art Wolfe (Canon and 400, 600), and for the life of me I cannot make out ANY difference in prints upto 13"x19" or thereabouts. I made these observations after looking at prints which I have purchased from all of you and own and not off the top of my head. That is a tremendous feather in Leica's cap - but it also means that the others have caught up. Anyway I have said what I have to, as I am sure you have, so let us drop the matter. Cheers Jayanand On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net> wrote: > Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > >>No complaint from me either - he is welcome to us what he wants - it >>just amuses me to see how other points of view get rubbished, with >>incorrect data! > > What is your data, Jayanand? ?You think that at the sizes I print nobody > would be able to distinguish between a photo made with the 200-400 and a > photo and with the 280 f/4 APO? ?Have you actually made this comparison? > > Regardless of the optical mechanical and ergonomic differences between the > lenses, my field data suggests that they would be different photos. ?The > much larger size and weight of the 200-400 would require different > technique and a different approach to the subjects. ?I cannot get nearly > as close to the animals with a big lens as I can with a smaller one; the > 200-400 would not allow many of the photos I've posted for this reason. > ?Many of my wildlife photos were made at distances under 3 meters > (Jackrabbit, for example) or 2 meters (some of the Mountain Bluebirds, > Ring-necked Pheasant, Sooty Grouse, Common Merganser) or one meter (turkey > poults, ground squirrel) and I'm often following there animals for hours > in rough terrain before I make even one exposure. > > My experience with heavier lenses is that I cannot frequently go from a > crouched position to standing without excessive fatigue (I'm also a > triathlete, it's not like I'm flabby). ?The dense vegetation I frequently > work in also prevents me from using a longer lens at a longer distance. > > For these reasons I compare the 280mm f/4 APO with comparable Nikon > lenses, and I find that the APO-Telyt is more suited to my needs. ?I've > tried about 2 or 3 dozen lenses from at least 5 makers in the focal > lengths between 200mm and 400mm. ?I find that the 280mm f/4 APO is best > suited to my needs. > > In the future please refrain from telling me that I should use some other > equipment unless you can demonstrate a measurable difference in > side-by-side comparisons in the conditions I work in with my subjects and > technique. > > Doug Herr > Birdman of Sacramento > http://www.wildlightphoto.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >