Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>The great Japanese site "imprint" on Jun Nakijima's DJ page has the whole
>range of 50mm lenes and examples of their "imprint".
>He altered the address recently but go to
>http://www2.magicalights.co.jp/dmakos/rolleitlr/index.html
>and then to the links page [once you have checked out the fantastic site,
>including images from my Rolleiwide] where you will find Jun under the
>links for the DJ site. Well worth the journey if you have not visited these
>great Japanese pages. Oh don't be frightened, they are all in English :-)
>
>http://www.magicalights.co.jp/decadent/focus/50/index.html
>
>This is the direct link to the 50mm page. There is also a great wide angle
>selection
>
>>depending on the body and lens cocktail, a full R system is almost as
>>heavy and cumbersome as some medium-format systems, and I maintain that.
>>if you want we can go through the specs of quite a few MF setups (SLR,
>>TLR, RF). No, not a Pentax 67 with 400mm lens ;-)
>
>It doesn't come close to the weight of an MF system, with the same
>capability as far as magnification (long and short lenses - some of which
>are wide enough there are no equivalents in any MF system). That's my
>point. My point about my objection is why do you have to bring up my name
>at all? There's sarcasm and offense seemingly offered is such a statement.
>
>>Than the M ? Yes, certainly. But exactly the same compositional control
>>as a 30 USD Praktica (another German classic).
>
>Hey, I learned to make my first pictures on a Praktica before I bought my
>own first camera. Don't knock it. Your point ignores why I said what I
>said, regardless of how true it is.
>
>>Maybe so. i'm not even going to try to challenge this. But the question
>>is: if you have the bucks, and the main application is landscapes, what
>>should you choose ? I argue: if weight and volume are main concerns to
>>you as a hiker, choose Leica M; if weight and volume are not important
>
>Oh, did he say he was a hiker? I focused on the R6.2 vs. Nikon vs. M6
>question. Slipped by on me.
>
>>One clear family resemblance, for sure: the price range. Okay, sorry,
>
>Good point. :-)
>
>>points introduced by the initiator of this thread. And I repeat: I have
>>never taken a picture through a R system, and would be very happy to own
>
>Then please, don't go around telling people that Japanese cameras are just
>as good. Use the R system, then you have a valid opinion.
>
>>one, thank you. I would love to get my hands on a 100mm f2.8 macro R and
>>a R8. But if the discussion is about doing landscapes, I say use the
>>bucks to the best of needs...
>
>We agree on that.
>- --
>
>Eric Welch
>Leica NEVER designs unsharpness into a lens. It's just that some people
>seem to think that if a lens isn't perfect, there must be some reason for
>it. I don't know much about the 90 Summicron M, but the 90 Summicron R is a
>superb lens that I would never hesitate to use wide open for any
>application. So I suspect if there's a "flaw" in the performance of the M
>version, it's because it's been surpassed by such good new stuff it just
>looks like a slacker. So your observation is probably correct, for the
>wrong reason. Leica would never do that on purpose - unless they tell us
>they did. That's one thing I like about Leica, they're very up front in
>many ways with what a lens is all about.
>
> When ever I used the 90 2.8 to photograph my wife or any of her friends
>> they'd hate what I'd get because they could see every charcter line or
flaw
>> on their faces. With the 90 f2 they complain, but not as much. (;o{ )#x
>
>B.D. (sorry, cannot figure out your first name),
>
>I use the 90 2.8 mainly fo that application (casual portraits), an it
>works great, especially on kids and young women (example on
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/AlanBall/aicha.htm ). It is
>true it brings the character out of a face and does not allow any
>cheating. But I do love the bokeh of that lens, which is an important
>factor for portraits, and I find the 'roundness" of the backgrounds
>counterbalances the 'sharpness' of the focused point. For some
>situations (new born with mum), I mellow it down just a little with a
>Nikon Soft nr 1. The effect is very subtle. And is repeatable (which
>might not be the case with crushed cellophane).
>
>I can see no need for the new 90mm asph-apo f2 for my usage: it seems to
>me it implies the HM body for reliable focusing wide open at portrait
>distances, and I would finally only gain 1 stop at very great financial
>cost. Better of with a s/h 85mm f1.4 from virtually any SLR maker for
>those low light situations or even with a Summilux. I have not seen any
>independent benchmarks for that new lens, but I would be very surprised
>if it did better than the Elmarit from f2.8 on.