Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 05:43 PM 30-08-97 -0500, Eric (He's baaaaaaaack!) Welch wrote: [snip] >In fact, where Leica lenses really shine (forgive me for repeating what >I've said in years past on this list), is when the chips are down. Nasty, >flat lighting, horrid backlighting, etc. In those situations (and I have >done side-by-side comparisons with a colleague and Canon L series where his >stuff was totally unusable and mine was wonderful and he said so) Leica >stands out above the rest - that I've used. (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, >Contax). I have little experience with Contax lenses. And I didn't like the >color bias. Yes, I will agree that under certain circimstances, Leica lenses DO make a big difference. For instance, my 75mm Summilux appears to be immune to flare compared with my Nikon 85/1.4, which is quite susceptable. And, I agree that under a quality loop, carefull study of negatives may show a difference (but I can't seem to find them with my own negatives), but I stick to my original assertion, that the statement " 'dirty & scratched glass, dented rim' Leica offers better images than a Minolta" makes no sense, and is undemonstratable in practice Dan C.