Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Chandos Michael Brown wrote: > 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. > It is quite impressive, considering what I assume was its low cost...just how low was its cost?...Low enough to justify the lack of speed?.. > 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'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? > That one is virtually impossible to answer, not having information about any number of relevant factors. I will say, however, that having made the switch from the pre-ASPH 35 1.4 to the ASPH version, the ASPH is a really incredible lens. It's only draw-back is that it is larger and heavier than the earlier version...but it is as close to flare-proof as you're going to get, and it is tack sharp opened up all the way. For a low-light shooter, it is an ideal "standard" lens - IMHO... :-) B. D. Really nice images by the way---whether shot with L, Contax or Canon....