Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>What follows is a quote of a article by Bob Schwalberg: >To test this, he made many portraits and other medium tele style shots >using his 50mm lens, but conmposing with 90mm framelines of his Leica >M.Because his 90 shot with 50 pictures were shot from yhe longer 90 mm >lens distances,the perspective was unchanged, and the high quality of >modern films proved that despite the extra enlargement needed to produce >equal sized prints,there was virtually no loss of quality. Kiba=B4s point >-which wasn=B4t much liked by some people in the sales department-was that >a 50mm can easyly replace a 90mm, thanks to progress in photograpic >chemistry and improvements of lens design and manufacture" >This article was written 20 years ago. >Lets beguin to draw our own conclusions Why waste half of your negative. Besides in long run, it pays to get the 90mm lens for portrait. Much better than using a 50mm, and then having to do cropping for a portraiture. I suppose for rangefinder users, one can still use the 135mm and get an effective 280mm, and still be able to compete with an SLR camera. Woody Yeung yeung@reed.edu