Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Two things: There's been quite a lot of conversation here and elsewhere about the capability of the Russar 20/5.6. I've just posted a couple of images that I think pretty well capture its strengths and weaknesses. All shots are hand held. I metered exposure with a Luna Pro. The aperture in the color image is stopped all the way down; the B&W image is wide open.. I've shot hundreds of frames w/ this lens on IIIf and it still impresses me. Mine was manufactured in 1995. The photo home page is: http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown/photomain.htm Click on "The Netherlands II" Additionally, I now celebrate about a year's experience with the non-asp 35/1.4 and begin to feel as though I'm getting the hang of the lens. I've posted the image that most pleases me under "Friends." Click on "Amy." The monitor simply doesn't do justice to the quality of the negative, which offers a far wider tonal range than reproduced here. The focus plane in the photo runs through the subject's hand and the glass adjacent to it. I'm shooting wide open. I'm curious: if I were taking the same photo with the newer asph. model, what sort of difference could I expect? I'm not interested in a flame; I'm genuinely interested to get some sense of the practical difference between the two version. Many thanks. Chandos Chandos Michael Brown Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies College of William and Mary http:www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown