Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Jim Brick wrote: >I agree with you Doug. But I question your statement about desiring APO >optical imaging. I looked at your work at the BALUG meeting here in Palo= >Alto and nearly everything I saw was stunningly sharp. It leaped right o= ff >of the film. I think APO and internal focus would translate into "heavy.= " Jim of course you're right, APO and internal focus would be heavier. The= f/6.8 Telyts are an excersize in minimalism, and any other features would= nessesarily make them less hand-holdable. What I meant and should have said is that the APO/internal focus lenses are certainly superb tools but= are not suitable for the more active subjects requiring a hand-held camer= a. That Leica has chosen to emphasize technical (near) perfection, sacrificing image-making of a more dynamic nature made possible by the hand-held camera, runs counter to a large part of my notion of what a Lei= ca is. Technical excellence is and always should (IMHO) be part of what "Leica" means but the lack of a hand-holdable long lens erodes my image o= f a Leica as a tool for making dynamic photographs. My yearning for APO image quality comes from those all-too-frequent occasions when I can't get close enough to the animal and I imagine I cou= ld salvage the field work if I could only enlarge 20% of the original image = to full frame. Kodachrome 200 is grainless, right?? I wish! In practial u= se the additional detail provided by an APO lens would probably be lost due = to the micro-motions of the hand-held camera. But if I'm going to lose some= sharpness I'd like to start with as much as I can. I've always been extremely satisfied with the sharpness, contrast and col= or quality of the 400 f/6.8 and 560 f/6.8 Telyts, and even after using 'em f= or nearly 20 years I'm still amazed at how responsive and capable the SL/400= combination is. Doug Herr Sacramento