Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: RE: [Leica] pointless debate about cheap lenses
From: "Henning J. Wulff" <henningw@archiphoto.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:33:23 -0800

At 8:53 AM -0800 3/13/00, Paul Chefurka wrote:


>On the other hand, I have real trouble discerning differences between
>lenses.  On Saturday I was in a used camera shop looking at 'blads, and the
>owner was conducting a challenge.  Two sets of three 4x6 B&W prints - one
>set shot on a G2 with the 45/2.0, one from an M4P with a 50/2.0 Elcan.  I
>was forced to participate because everyone there knew I was a Leica user.
>On all three prints I unerringly picked out ... the Contax :-/  The prints
>looked identical in all respects except the Contax shots had noticebly
>better shadow detail.  Oh the shame...

4x6???

50 Elcan???

Somebody is actually using the Elcan to take pictures? It's worth a whole
lot as a collectible, but not that much as a shooter, since it's a
simplified lens and not nearly as good as many other 50's, and not likely
as good as the 45/2 Contax. If I had an Elcan, I would put it up on eBay
and buy something expensive and useful (or use it for my income tax
installment).

   *            Henning J. Wulff
  /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
 /###\   mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com
 |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com