Re: [Leica] Re: which lens

[D Khong <dkhong@pacific.net.sg>]

charlie trentelman of ogden, utah wrote:

>what is this crap, dan? You make 1950s leica optics sound like model Ts. I 
>can hear the victrola playing in the background as you talk about "that 
>period look" and "retro-look."
>Leica optics always had a distinctive look to their images because of slight 
>unresoved errors, but only the slightest -- they are as sharp as anything 
>made today and as capable of producing a "modern" image (whatever the hell 
>that is) as they were then. I just got done shooting a series of 
>architectural studies with my 50 mm 3.5 Elmar (ca. 1956) and they are as
good 
>as anything you would get with your modern hasselblad, whatever.

You are entitled to your opinion that the optical performance of the leica
lenses made in the 1950s are on par with the modern optics that leica makes
nowadays. I have both and I can see the differences. I did not say that the
pictures produced by the vintage lenses looked terrible. In fact, I have
mentioned on numerous occasions that I like the roundness in the pictures
that these older lenses give me (I can only hope that you can understand
what I am trying to describe).
 
>
>so why you dissing them? u work for Leitz? They pay you to push the aspheric 
>lenses? 

I like your style with the verbal six-shooter. Anyone who speaks well of
the current crop of leica optical designs works for leica. Heck, you
would'nt believe how much Leica Solms is paying me to do all this.

>Cross stitch this somewhere everyone will ya: Leica Made NO bad optics. They 
>are all Excellent. You feeling silly about all the money you paid for them 
>and have to talk yourself into believing they really are $2000 better?

Hear.....hear...... 
and I'm such a silly boy for squandering all that big bucks on those
gASPHerical optics for nothing. I will have to keep telling myself NEVER
NEVER NEVER to do such a naughty thing again.

>
>and remember, no matter  what lens you use, the end-result image is still 95 
>percend dependent on the shooter and only 5 percent on the equipment. The 
>added improvement of modern glass is, in that formula, very small indeed.

WOW, what a profound statement indeed!! I'm impressed by your wide
experience,  photographic insight and wisdom, and your uncanny ability to
assign those percentages to where they are worth. The LUG can certainly go
a long way with more people like you around to advise us accordingly. 

Sayonara,

Dan K.