Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm willing to throw Zeiss into that as well. I'm not sure that Zeiss uses as much asph as Leica, or if they just don't mention it in the lens name. It is probably a flaw in my standards that I don't care so much about corner sharpness. If the corner is that important, I should have put it in the middle instead of the corner. Other than my Russian lenses, virtually everything I own is good enough for me (= better than me). I really don't like anything about zoom lenses and rarely use them on my dSLR cameras. Sent from my iPad Jeffery L. Smith New Orleans, Louisiana USA On Jul 9, 2012, at 21:49, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > Ah, I was talking Leica asph ;-) > > john > ________________________________________ > > > The Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton was perhaps the first really sharp, > afforable, asph lens that people hated for its bokeh. The trend in > thinking seemed to be that reducing aberrations with asph elements > benefitted everything except bokeh. > > I think every lens needs to be assessed on its own merit. I don't have any > bad Leica lenses, though the old 50/3.5 Elmar performs like a Russian > copy. Wait, maybe it is.... > > The 50/2.5 Hexanon is better. > > Sent from my iPad > > Jeffery L. Smith > New Orleans, Louisiana > USA > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 20:56, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > >> I think that is a widely held misconception.... >> >> john >> ________________________________________ >> >> >> By the way, George, you had some incredibly creamy-bokeh shots posted the >> other day, and one of them was with an aspherical Leica lens(!). It blew >> away my bias that aspherical = bad bokeh. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information