Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm often just as interested as how a lens may look than what the pictures this lens takes looks. And how the lens feels. And the way it may conform to the inside of a particular camera bag. I sometimes use lenses which are like old friends and I'm dimly aware that the specs from these optics don't compare so well with modern optics that I may also have. So if I'm shooting something which is a big deal and might get blown up big then I go with more modern cutting edge glass. But if I'm just taking out my camera for another days spin like I always do then I'll use all kinds of vintage glass going back to the 1970's. Right now though I have to say I'm on a kick of using very up to date 1.8 just out glass and loving every minute of it. They shock and amaze me every time its time to tweak and upload them. Nikkor G glass. On 4/23/15 8:02 PM, "George Lottermoser" <george.imagist at icloud.com> wrote: > Certainly not going against my grain here Jim. > Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Canon, Schneider, Rodenstock, Mamiya, Fuji, Goertz, > Cooke, have all earned their rightful places along side Leica, Zeiss and > many > others. I've made photographs with each and every one of those names at one > time or another. > > My only point had to do with the subject line, "Lens Choices" and the > showing > of examples from lenses without naming even the focal length. > > I get that some folks consider the "image" as the only important thing > about > posting photographs on the list. Though obviously we do have interests in > the > hardware as well as the content and processing and the list could go on. > > Personally I like knowing that Alan loves 50 mm and longer lenses; and I'm > also interested in his eclectic collection of vintage canon, nikon, leica, > olympus and other mfg's. > > a note off the iPad, George > > On Apr 23, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net> > wrote: > >> I realize I am going against the grain here. I am resisting the >> conventional >> "wisdom" that, if it is not made by Leica or Zeiss, etc, then it has to be >> junk. The same holds for earlier models. I feel a lens should be >> evaluated >> on what it can do for ME, not what the "experts" claim. >> >> This is to show, especially to me, that my lens of choice, which happens >> to >> be a Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4 (7-element lens) from around >> 1971, can do a reasonable job for me without having to spend a small >> fortune >> for the latest and greatest lens, that is admittedly somewhat better, but >> at >> what cost? > > _______________________________________________ > 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/