Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/06/19[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Well, I guess the only answer to the question as to which 2/50 design works best for the individual shooter is for the individual shooter to use 'em all and decide for him or herself. I did so, and prefer the NF design to any other. This is at f/2.0, 2.8 ... and so on, to f/16. I do my own darkroom work and did comparison shots -- the contrast, colour saturation, resolution, and sharpness in the NF was dramatically better than the second version and markedly better than the current lens -- and, the critical point, the final image quality was simply far, far more pleasing with the NF, at all image scales I tested, up to 20" x 24". That's why I sold my others and kept the 2/50 NF -- it outperforms the others! I agree that lens tests don't tell everything -- but they can be a guide. And it simply isn't true that Leica ignores production costs when designing or re-designing a lens. They pay close attention to the economics or else they would have gone under in the 1970's, as they almost did. Part of the reorganizations of the 1980's was undertaken to hive off the cost-is-no-object sections -- the scientific and technical branches -- from the consumer sections, cameras and binoculars. Each photographer should test these lenses for themselves -- I simply know what works for me. Obviously, many, many others agree with my position -- but each individual can only tell for themself what works for them. Marc firstname.lastname@example.org FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!