Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"N.S. Ng" wrote: > > Hello, > > I have been using this lens for about 11/2 years, I purchased this because I > like to have a short range zoom and on occassions when I want to travel > light. Many of my shots were taken at f4. My other zoom is a 70-210 > Angeniuex. I have the 50 Summicron R as well. > > The 35-70 f4, is a fine performer. At its widest aperture, f4, its > performance is better than the 50 Summicron at f4. It seems to be sharper, > probably due to its higher contrast. I have also compared the performance at > 35mm. end to my 35 mm. Summicron-M ( non- aspherical) at f.4 and I could not > see any difference. I have not compared this to my 35mm. Summilux-Asph. At ><Snip> IF the 35-70 f4,zoom is sharper at f4 than the 50 Summicron is more then just a "fine performer". The 50 Summicron has been lens all other 50mm lenses have been compared against for decades (but not usually zooms) and defines "Leica" and I won't go on and on. That zoom would be on the cover of Time: the man of the year would be a lens...a technological object. Like the Prozac pill. Comparing the results of a premium quality if not legendary fixed lens to a zoom at all is a little unlogical in my opinion but saying the zoom is better is downright delusional. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where you could get a zoom sharper than a 50 Summicron?! I'll dream about that tonight! Zoom technology has come far hasn't it? NOT THAT FAR! In the morning I'll be waking up to the real world again. What the zoom does better is zoom. Everything else is a trade-off. Especially in anything resembling a flair/backlit situation. Too many elements! Too much wizbang! Mark Rabiner