Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I noticed a similar problem with my 35/1.4, after reading the article on the lens in the LHSA website, I was illuminated and educated. I can imagine that Lee F had a similar problem. jem ---------- From: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' To: KIMEJ44; 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: [Leica] Lee Friedlander and wide-angles Date: 14 December 1997 18:55 A question for the group: I have read, and heard Lee Friedlander speak of a "congenital problem" with using wide-angle lens in his desert and Olmsted series'. I quote him from VIEWING OLMSTED: "The reason I started using [the Hasselblad superwide] was that I was having some kind of congenital problem with wide-angle lenses [on the Leica] in the desert, probably because of the light, and probably because those lenses were designed for flat surfaces. Those lenses are usually used by people who do architectural work, which deals with flat surfaces, not so much with a large area with lots of details. I don't know what the reasons were. It looked as if areas were out of focus and they wouldn't be the same every time. I call it congenital because it comes with the lens; it's not something anybody can fix and it's not that anybody even knows why." Can anybody elaborate on his perceived problem? I am wondering specifically what M-series wide-angle lenses he may be refering to. I own a 35mm f-2 Summicron and have never noticed a focus problem. I am assuming, from looking at some of the images in VIEWING OLMSTED (a great book by the way), that he was using 28mm and wider. Bill