Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]To answer some of your remarks. 1. The Planar 2,8/80 and the Summicron were used with an aperture of 8,0 and 5,6 respectively to offset the smaller depth of field of the larger format used at the same distance. At these apertures both lenses are at their best. The Planar is still used by the Zeiss people to demonstrate the resolving power of their line up. So I would not regard this lens as a laggard. 2. The panel consisted of a group of photo experts with more than thirty years experience in evaluating pictures. 3. Yes, the larger negative area of the 120 format allows for a much larger print, when both formats are enlarged to the same degree. The Pentax versus Leica comparison used a section of 30x40 *INCH* were I used *30x40* CM. Thats a factor of 2,5 more. I also stated that at enlargements that big the Leica could not compete with the 120 format. There is no disagreement here. 4.The point I would like to make is that at moderate enlargements the Leica is on a par with the H'blad as far as image recording capabilities are concerned. The Leica M, as a photographic instruments, has its special virtues in a few selected area, as does the H'blad in some other areas. No comparison here. 5. The 'famous' Leica 'glow' which has been the subject in this group some time ago, is unknown to me. I respect the Leica lenses for its unique combination of sharpness and excellent rendition of fine detail, which enhances the impression of roundness and plasticity of 3-D objects. In this they lead the world, be it with only a small margin to their nearest competiotors, Zeiss, Nikon and Canon. Erwin Puts