[Leica] Picking up old lenses

[Don Dory]

I have a very good selection of the "great lenses of the past"  You have
seen some of them posted in my weekly postings.  My personal problem is
that I prefer the uber sharpness and acuity that the new glass provides.
Acquiring very high MP cameras seems to ask for the same in the lenses.
Yet, when I go to the older formulations the image is the thing.  If the
message in the image is weak then who cares if you can count eyelashes on
the dog in the corner.

So, off I will go with a 50 Elmarit or Zeiss equivalent and see what
becomes magic before me.

On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 10:17 AM Frank Filippone via LUG <lug at leica-users.org>
wrote:

> I bought the M42 early version of the Pentax 300mm lens for travel.  It is
> pretty light, very sharp, and physically smaller than anything I could buy
> today.  It is F6.3, which allows it to be small. It is one of what I call
> Cult Lenses.  Good to superb optics, but not modern.  They exist in every
> brand.  Nikon 105, Leica 35 Summicron, Canon FD 135/3.5, Contarex Distagon
> 25mm, Pentax 18mm F4 semi fisheye to mention a few.  Usually they sell for
> the equivalent of the sales tax on a modern lens.
>
> The genius of the mirrorless bodies is that with an adapter, they are
> pretty much all usable.....  I have several.  Differing brands.  All great
> lenses.
>
> And some are dogs.  You find this out AFTER you test out the lens......But
> usually, and because of the Internet, you can read and avoid the terrible
> lenses.
>
>
> Frank Filippone
> BMWRed735i at Gmail.com
> >
> > While this lens combo works, many others are very poor, and inevitably
> I'll probably have to buy Sony E mount lenses.
> >
> > Douglas
> >
> >
> > On 06/06/2021 22:02, Don Dory via LUG wrote:
> >> This isn't about a great lens I found. What I am really questioning is
> >> using equipment that is "good enough"  I stumbled on a 40mm Makro Kilfit
> >> f3.5 D version at a stupidly cheap price.  Even in Exacta mount that
> wasn't
> >> an obstacle with a mirrorless body.  It is a four element in three group
> >> design. Using it I found it quite usable wide open if you kept the main
> >> subject in the center third.  Stopped down to 5.6-8 it was quite usable
> out
> >> to the outer third.
> >>
> >> Even compared to the Leica 60mm Macro it is half the size and weight.
> So,
> >> what is everybodies feelings about good enough even though modern
> >> technology will be far superior?  I know more than several members have
> >> transitioned to the Q2 for the size, weight, and simplicity of use.
> >>
> >> Part of this is that younger photographers need a beginning place.
> Most of
> >> us started out on used equipment that worked and as our fortunes and
> >> interests matured we acquired better tools.  My child didn't really get
> an
> >> income that would support a lot of hobbies until thirty after the PhD.
> >> Many folk don't get to that point so the tools need to be more
> reasonable
> >> than a $2000 M body and a $500 foggy Russian lens.
> >>
> >> Anyway, thoughts?
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



-- 
Don
don.dory at gmail.com