[Leica] obviously subjective - yet interesting

[john at mcmaster.co.nz (John McMaster)]

I see that some people find their lenses are outside of the range of 
adjustment....

john

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> That is why they have a AF Fine Tune function in their high end DSLRs, so 
> you
> can correct their mass production variances in camera.
> 
> Gene
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz>
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013 6:42:46 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [Leica] obviously subjective - yet interesting
> 
> Part of the reason I sold the Nikon is that most short lenses are not up 
> to its
> sensor IMO. I had a Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 which at f5.6 was close to the quality 
> of
> my Summilux asph at f2.0 ;-) The fussy users on getdpi are adapting Leica R
> (primarily 19mm v2, 28mm and 50mm Summicron) as they are still superior to
> current offerings, Sigmas 35mm is good if you can find a well assembled
> version... Zeiss will one day release their huge 55mm f1.4 Distagon, their
> 135mm f2.0 is good but has sample variation - one of the things you pay for
> with Leica, Hasselblad (of old), Linhof etc is tight quality control, 
> Japanese
> manufacturers mass produce and it is luck as to whether you get a good one,
> and whether you complain if not....
> 
> john
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > ? With my Canon SLR's, at least, I can focus on any particular point.
> > Either use the AE/AF button on the back of the camera instead of on
> > the shutter release, in this case to lock on the eyes, or just dial
> > the spot focus point around until it lands where you want, e.g., on
> > the eyes.  My guess is that there was a more global autofocus in play
> > here.  And it is a guess.  This is not to say that Leica lenses are
> > anything but the best, obviously they are, just to speculate that it was 
> > not
> an apples-to-oranges test.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > What use is it if you cannot focus where you want?
> >
> > ;-)  john
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > My Canon L zooms benefit from the micro adjustment for auto focus,
> > > but the primes seem OK as is, so far.  I wonder where the auto-focus
> > > point was with the Nikon?  Judging from the out-of-focus areas, I'm
> > > guessing it was not on the eyes.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > >
> > > Hmmm,
> > > A new Nikon 50mm F1.4 G is less than $500 and a new 50mm Summilux
> > Asph
> > > is $4,000. Perhaps there is some truth that you get what you pay for.
> > > :-) Also I have found that all my nikon lenses benefited from being
> > > auto focus fine tuned due to variations in assembly. Perhaps the 50
> > > Nikkor in this test was not tuned to the body used. Just a thought.
> > > I have two Nikkor 50 f1.4 D lenses and they are both softer at f1.8
> > > than my newly purchased and focus tuned 50mm F1.8 G. It cost me
> $220.00.
> > > Howard
> > >
> > > Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:57:33 -0500
> > > From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [Leica] obviously subjective - yet interesting
> > > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> > >
> > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 11:59 AM, philippe.amard wrote:
> > >
> > > > Repat the same experiment at, say, 12800 ISO ;-)
> > >
> > > > Le 7 juin 13 ? 17:46, George Lottermoser a ?crit :
> > > >
> > > >> <http://www.stephenbartelsgallery.com/blog/nikon-d800e-v-leica-
> > > m9.htm
> > > >> l>
> > >
> > > Would if I could.
> > > Wish I had both (or either) kits in my possession. ;~(
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > George Lottermoser
> > > george at imagist.com
> > > http://www.imagist.com
> > > http://www.imagist.com/blog
> > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
> > >