Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/21

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] M and R "standard" lens
From: Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 09:14:13 -0600

>Nowadays, the 21-35mm zooms + fill-in flash on AF SLRs are dominant for
>those applications. The M system with w/a from 21 to 35mm can sometimes
>compete in that environment for obvious reasons (size, silence, etc).
>The R system, deprived from any such zoom, is a bit out of that niche.

That assumption is based on the lack of good fast wide angle lenses that
has forced photojournalists to adopt such lenses. Until the past couple of
months, Canon had no 35mm 1.4 lens, so photojournalists had no compelling
reason to buy anything faster. Nikon's lens is ancient and manual focus.
What's one stop faster over the zoom, so some think. So they get the zoom
for framing flexibility. It's a good idea, as long as flash is in the bag.
And their zoom now goes to 17mm. Which for digital cameras is a necessity.

But slap a 35mm 1.4 on a lens, and people take notice on the light table.
All of a sudden you're getting pictures people can't get with a 2.8 lens.
Period. I do it all the time.

I also shoot basketball with a 90 Summicron, because the gyms around here
are too dim to shoot 3200 film at 2.8 and keep the shutter speed above
1/180. So everyone else has to take radio remote flashes and get shadows on
faces because the players arms are high up sometimes. Me? My basketball
pictures are actually technically better than the flash pictures because
I've hit on the right combination of exposure, processing. My shadows are
full and contrast is just about ideal. Color is easily corrected in
Photoshop. So my f/2 lens actually means better available light pictures
than pictures with flash with ugly shadows. That is, except in one gym that
has a low white ceiling that flash can be bounced off of. 

Focusing is difficult, but not impossible. Then the pictures are about
equal, except my exposure is more accurate. (With flash, the exposure
increases and decreases away from one ideal distance from the flashes.)

Fast apertures and available light is becoming a lost art among
photojournalists because they've been wooed to these fast, but not so fast,
zoom lenses. I see a major advantage for the long end. But for wide angle
lenses, I'd prefer to have a 35 1.4 and a 24 f/2 (I can dream, can't I?)
lens. Those faster wide angles are available with Nikon if you're talking
manual focus. Forget Canon, except for the new 35 1.4 aspherical. This is
another area Leica could have a major advantage. If they'd bring out 28 and
24 Summicrons. The 24, I'm sure would be too big physically on an M, so
it'd have to be an R lens. And that is the focal length that most needs
replacing in the R line. But 28 Summicrons on the R and M would be a major
asset for photojournalists over a wide zoom that's a stop slower.
- -- 

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

Profanity sucks.