Re: [Leica] lenses and saturation

[Zeissleica@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/8/99 5:38:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jplaurel@microsoft.com writes:

>  Have any of you had a similar experience?  Is it just that the AE system in
>  my head is smarter than the Canon's or have you noted that the Leica M
>  lenses seem to produce richer, more saturated colors?
>  
>  Best Regards,
>  --Jim Laurel

Jim...

It depends.

I recently purchased a Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for my wife as an 
anniversary gift for her to use with her manual Pentax Super Program and we 
did some comparison shots over the past weekend in the wilds of West 
Virginia.  She used the metering from her camera and her new Sigma, while I 
used my Sekonic L-508, 35/3.5 Summaron, 50/2.0 collapsible Summicron and 
135/4.5 Hektor on my M3.

I was expecting the worst, as the lenses I used date from the mid-1950's (the 
exception being the newer Noct, of course, but I didn't use it during this 
shoot) and are lacking many of the modern improvements, such as 
multi-coatings and special elements.

I was amazed when we got the E100VS slides back and the Leica images had such 
a strong showing.  In the exact same light, shooting position and subject, 
there were very similar amounts of lens flare.  However, my metering and 
focusing were more accurate, some (not all) of my shots were more saturated, 
and almost all had better contrast than the shots she took with the Sigma.  
She was able to focus much closer then I could, for nice closeups.

Additionally, I have been showing my recent work to other photo friends 
(low-end Nikon and Minolta SLR users) and they have been shocked at the 
results I have been getting with 45 year old glass, marveling at the shadow 
details and edge-to-edge tonaliy performance.

I haven't been able to do any high-end comparisons with others yet, so my 
results have to be taken with a grain of salt.

/Mitch