Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The Leicas I use are all M's, and for reflex stuff I use Nikons. I can tell the difference almost always, because I use them differently. For a number of years in the 70's, I used 15, 21, 35 & 90 lenses on the M, and 28PC, 55 Micro, 180 and 400 lenses on the Nikon, plus the occasional zoom. They complemented each other well, and I could shoot a project with the two types of cameras and lenses and make them coherent, but there was never a problem in determining which was which. Today, if I shoot something with my 35/1.4 ASPH or 35/1.4 Nikkor, I could tell them apart at f/1.4, because the Leica lens is noticeably better, and at f/5.6, because usually the Leica lens exhibits some nasty flare at that aperture, but otherwise if the pictures are taken of the same subject under similar lighting, I would look for 'reflex fingerprints' vs. 'rangefinder fingerprints' to tell the difference, rather than lens characteristics. I think the only reasonable test would be to compare 'R' lenses to other SLR lenses. 'M' to reflex lenses of other makes would have too many tell-tale signs that would give it away without demonstrating lens differences. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com