Re: [Leica] Pictures taken with SOOKY-M

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 05:52 AM 4/29/98 +0000, you wrote:

>I've got a standing challenge open on this issue. Basicly "prove
>it". What experiment should I do that will prove this to me?

I don't have to prove it, you have to prove your assertion is true against
the vast majority of experts who over the years have said so. But a good
exercise is look through the viewfinder of an M3. That's a known amount of
magnification, and dang close to what a 50mm lens has. The open both eyes.
Well, whadda ya know, both eyes see dang near the same thing.

Magnification and angle of view are independent.

>I don't know about which is easiest to design. I'm talking about
>cheapest to make. Nikon or Canon can make a pretty damned good
>50/1.8 that costs them about $30 to manufacture. That's certainly
>not due to the number made. Nikon/Canon don't even make that many

You make all sorts of assertions, but when I talk to people who know the
manufacturers intimately (say like Arthur Kramer, former editor/writer at
Modern Photography and other more prestigious publications) they have said
that the short teles are easiest to make. And it is because they are made
is such large numbers they are cheaper. That's an obvious reason. They sell
a ton of them. That's also the reason Leica is so expensive. They don't
make many.

>The 50/2 is about $945 and the 90/2 is about $1695. See what I
>mean?

R lenses! But I was thinking some years ago for the 90 Summicron, and use.
Well that was just plain late night thinking. Doesn't apply to this
situation, which only new prices are relevant, so you're right on THAT
point. But then, 50  Summicrons are very popular, so they would cost less
than a less popular lens - which has several alternatives to purchase.
==========

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

The young child is looking in the world to find himself -
reflected in a mirror with a thousand faces.

- -Maria Montessori