Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> The "look" is the optical inferiority of lenses of that era.:-) They have > more flare, more fall-off at the edges, etc. etc. Call it Leica glow, call > it Coke Bottle Bottom, the bottom line is that it isn't something lens > designers were trying to achieve, it is simply the best they could achieve > given the tools they had. > > One may like the "glow," but it doesn't make a lot of sense to tout it as > "superior" to the images produced by modern lenses. > > I note that having gone from the Pre-asph 21 to the ASPH 21 for the M, while > I was thrilled with the pre-asph when I used it, the results I get with the > ASPH are far superior, in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness, lack of flare, > and lack of light fall off... > > B. D. > > B.D. I do not disagree with anything that you say about the 'look' in fact I am pretty sure that I understand (finally) everything (well almost) Erwin has said on this point. To me the razor sharpness of modern lenses is not real important to me for everything that I shoot. We have all heard about the 'glow' and, I think there is something to that even when I compared my current Summicron 50mm with a Nikor 50/1.4 I could see a glow that the razor sharp Nikor did not have. For me what lens I use boils down to what I am shooting and the effect that I would like to achieve. Steve Annapolis