Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/08

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Summicron 35/2 wide open
From: "dan states" <dstate1@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 08:32:37 PST

I can give you a whole stack of them...I shoot a ton of "meetings and 
meals" crap for my company, and have been not so pleasantly suprised to 
find heads blurred and details obscured.  I have been forced into 800+ 
speed film, with all its tradeoffs as a result.

In landscape/scenic/ travel photography (yes Walt, there is something 
other than photojournalism) I have had numerous low light exterior 
shoots that look fudgy on the edges.  I had only two choices, tripod or 
faster film.  (maybe I have a hangup on slow film, but the fast stuff 
still looks too grainy)


My point is that Leica makes a point of saying that their lens' exhibet  
premium performance at the widest apertures.  I have found otherwise 
with the non asph Summicron.  Is it a BAD lens?  Hell no, I still love 
it when used properly.  Are ALL Leica lens' overrated.  Hell no, the 50 
Summicron is still the standard of the world, as is the 100mm apo, and 
the 35 asph Summilux.

I am suprised at how many people are willing to accept aberations that 
are visible on their photography.  I prefer a lens that does not make 
itself noticable in the photograph.  I want what I SEE to be on the 
film, without "commentary" from the equipment.  Surely Leica is the 
closest we can get to that ideal, but perfection is yet to be had.

As for the "hell they're only tools" argument, well this IS an EQUIPMENT 
based discussion group.  

I am now putting on my flame resistant clothing and Number 3000 
sunblock.  You may fire away at will.

Best wishes,  Dan

>
>What exactly are you shooting at F2 that this edge softness creates a 
>problem. Unless you are reproducing a page of newsprint (why would 
>you do that at F2?) what are the chances that everything in a 
>photograph would be in the exact same narrow plane of focus as your 
>main subject. For images with details throughout the frame, like 
>landscape images, you would be shooting at 5.6 or 8 anyway. At F2 
>it's not what's in focus that counts, but what happens as things move 
>out of the plane of focus. In the darkroom you can't create the 
>subtle softness and effects that occur in images made with a Leica.
>
>Some one please give me an example of an image you'd make at F2 where 
>edge to edge sharpness in the plane of focus matters.
>
>Tom
>
> that are cAt 6:43 AM -0800 3/7/99, dan states wrote:
>>Hi Bill, I agree that the effect can sometimes be usable, and I have
>>produced some unique shots when I kept it in mind.  I guess I would
>>rather try to achieve said effects in the dark room, and at least have
>>the option of sharp results in the field.  I have had many occasions
>>where I had to resort to a faster film to hand hold the shots.  I
>>dislike most fast films for the obvious image quality reasons and 
would
>>certainly appreciate an extra stop of usable speed.
>>There also that nasty question of price...I paid $1,100 for my lens
>>new....I was expecting perfection....
>>
>>I am curious about users of the oldest versions of the 35 F2.  Many 
feel
>>it was better than the last non asph.  How does the older lens' edge
>>quality compare to the newer version?
>>
>>Best Wishes
>>Dan
>>.
>>>
>>>I know this is going to sound blasphemous to this list, but there are
>>some
>>>Leica users who actually like this crummy effect. Chances are, if you
>>are
>>>shooting wide open with fast film then the light is not very 
available
>>and
>>>edge unsharpness becomes an effect. And I can't get that same crummy
>>effect
>>>with my Nikon 35mm f2. The Nikon prints don't have the same sharp,
>>unsharp
>>>look (glow) that the Leica prints do. I hope there is more to
>>photography,
>>>Leica photography even, than edge to edge tack sharpness. If there
>>isn't,
>>>I'm doomed. ~:)
>>>
>>>Bill Franson
>>>
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>Thomas Kachadurian
>WEB PAGE: http://members.aol.com/kachaduria
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com