Re: Leica Wide Angles?

[wilcox@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Ken Wilcox)]

I can't compare the 28 Elmarit to the Nikon, but it is not as sharp as the
21 SA 3.4. That is beside the point however. There is a vast coverage
differrence between the two.

Cheers!

kw

>
>Like to know which 28 had 'low sharpness."  I have a 3rd version and it's
>sharp as a pin.  I do agree that it doesn't give much boost in coverage over
>my 35 Summicron (2nd ed), but it is sharp into the corners at wide apertures
>(a function of field curvature in the Summicron, I'm sure).  I like the 28
>because, unlike the 24 and 21, it is more useful for a larger number of
>situations, e.g. street work, minor architecture, etc.  The others cover too
>big a field to be (comfortably) useful in many of these same situations.
>
>Curt
>
>>Hi, Bill:
>>
>>Try to get a used Super Angulon. Although slower, the older f 4.0 or 3.4 are
>>even better than the 2.8 (sharpness, contrast), and the Super Angulon is
>>better than the Elmarit (sharpness). I was unhappy with the 28 (the visual
>>angel difference to the 35 is too small, the sharpness is to low - even
>>compared to Nikon). I never used a 24. My favorite 50 is the summicron
>>because of contrast and details even at f 2.0, although the late summilux is
>>not so bad either (if you don't use f1.4).
>>
>>-Alf
>>
>>
>
>Elizabeth Mei Wong
>Birding with Berkshire County's Hoffman Bird Club or
>             Women Outdoors at http://members.aol.com/womenout/index.htm
>
>Henry Curtis Miller, M.P.A.
>
>Pittsfield, Massachusetts
>In the Berkshires, next door to Tanglewood

- ----
Ken Wilcox                                Carolyn's Personal Touch Portraits
LHSA, MEA, LAW                         preferred---> <wilcox@umcc.umich.edu>
                                              <kwilcox@genesee.freenet.org>