Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Dear Fred,
I enjoyed your initial post, and found it quite a propos. I own
an F 1, and three "L" lenses, the 85, the 50, and the 20-35. I have often
wondered if I really need the 50 and the 85 (as opposed to their slightly
slower stablemates). I started off as one obsessed by having cool
equipment and carressing it in a fetishistic way. Recently, however, I
have discovered myself as a photographer and freed myself from those
covetous feelings. I now hunger for opportunities to capture beautiful
images, and regard the camera as a tool and not an objet d'art. I do
however now have a hunger for that 24 you mentioned, and probably will not
be satisfied until I own one (snicker). But seriously, photography is
about creating and capturing images, the equipment is a means not an end.
And as "the end justifies the means", one only uses the means necesary to
achieve his goal. Thus careful consideration would be warranted when
purchasing special equipment. Having said this, I have always found use
for every piece of exotic equipment I own, but whether these items were
essential, well, I doubt it.
When I purchased an M-6 with a 35 1.4 (non aspheric), and Canadian
50 2.0 some months ago I was delighted by the image quality. The 50 was
outstanding, but the 35 exhibited flare and "fuzziness", yet it did produce
charming images. I have since sold my M-6 and lenses, in favor of a Mamiya
6 outfit, which I am curious to try out. I must disagree with you in that
I noticed a very pronounced improvement even with small prints, when
shooting M Leica. It seemed to me that you said one could not tell the
difference between Leica and others at 4x6, correct me if I am wrong.
In any case I found your comments valid and worthy of consideration.
Cheers, Claude.