Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mark, you among few, know of course that it?s easy to make a copy, but a copy that communicates feeling is another story?lyrical, poetic? that?s what we mean?. soul, and I know you understand all this very well. s > On Apr 3, 2015, at 1:47 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > > Wow Bob! "Digitally precise!" Sounds like a pejorative! I can look it up > but > I have a feeling I'm not going to find it! > As in what you get when you get a lens with cutting edge modern glass and > modern coatings and modern lens design? > And as if anyone ever could tell a digital photo from an analog photo. > A digital photo has no soul!!! > You get that well known hated "digital" look instead of the revered > "analog" > look. Which most people just chalk up to smoother bokeh and lower contrast. > And my god a lens with measurable micro contrast is probably a very bad > thing. Steals the soul! > We should be shooting tri x with single coated glass and making a real > photograph. > Bad equals good. > A premise which shoots the hell out of any intelligent conversation you're > ever going to try have about the materials and practice of photography. > > > > On 4/3/15 4:24 PM, "Bob Adler" <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I didn't complain that the old lenses make better images. I don't think >> lenses make images. >> The 0.95 is stellar: Sharper at 0.95 than the f/1 is at f/1 and a truly >> contrast-less bokeh. But I prefer the older less perfect look over the >> newer, more digitally precise. >> >> Dare you to say my preference is wrong! ;-) >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I would also like to see side by side comparisons but the meantime I'd >>> think >>> the new lens is better than the old one (which I have) on all accounts. >>> This >>> is a key lens in the Leica lineup with high visibility promo value and >>> the >>> last lens Dr. Andreas Kaufmann is going to mess up in any respect. >>> The f1 has trouble with digital. A huge embarrassment for the Leica >>> company. >>> This one costing three times more money and having the fastest design >>> available is not going to have any glitches in it. Its going to be worth >>> it. >>> Leica has the resources to make sure this is the case. >>> >>> Its common on at least this the list to assume that a lens with an >>> aspheric >>> element in it has a harsh look with ruined bokeh. Leica went to bed and >>> woke >>> up stupid. >>> Its as if it goes without saying so that people will make solid >>> statements >>> to this effect without even seeing this first hand on a new lens it not >>> questioned by anybody. >>> I've have four M lenes with aspherics in them and have found that first >>> hand >>> to not be true. Each generation of Leica glass, Nikon too and I'd think >>> Canon gets sharper with better contrast and god forbid they'd forget much >>> better bokeh. As this aspect of a lens is all anyone cares or knows about >>> any more. >>> I find this worship of old glass to be puerile. Even multi coating is >>> looked >>> upon with a negative slant and older simpler coatings revered. They even >>> say >>> this improves film speed. Pay extra for a single coated lens. Less >>> contrast >>> means better shadow detail. Like never. >>> The lens or camera companies are highly competitive and none of them are >>> stupid. The general level of optical engineering improves every minute. >>> I always with few exceptions get the latest a camera company has to offer >>> unless I cant afford it or its no longer made or its more compact or >>> something. If I get old glass I don't claim they make better images. They >>> make cheaper images. >>> >>> >>> On 4/3/15 3:18 PM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>>> The f1 can create 'dreamier' images, the f0.95 is a bit harsher. I read >>> a few >>>> years back about someone who had both; he used the f0.95 if he was going >>>> somewhere and had to get a photo (stopped down it is almost as good as >>> any >>>> Leica 50mm) but used the f1 in his own time for personal images. The >>> colours >>>> from the f0.95 and gorgeous but the f1 is also significantly smaller and >>>> lighter! >>>> >>>> john >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> >>>> Or maybe it's just nostalgia... >>>> >>>> Even if it's purely emotional, I just can't justify having something >>>> this >>>> expensive that makes me feel guilty not loving it. >>>> >>>> Sue >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 10:04 AM, Robert Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is something lovely and unique about the "older" Notcti's >>>>> indeed! I agree that there is some secret ingredient missing in the >>>>> new 0.95's. I think if I were to see some side-by-side shots I might >>>>> be able to better see a difference. >>>>> Good luck with the sale: many love and produce beautiful images with >>>>> it. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Bob >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Susan Ryan <skalte at icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I shot maybe 100 images with it. Just don't love it the way I did my >>> 1.0. >>>>>> $9000. Photos available. Paypal preferred but we can discuss >>>>>> alternatives if necessary. Contact me offlist. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sue Ryan >>>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark William Rabiner >>> Photographer >>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> > > > > > -- > Mark William Rabiner > Photographer > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information