Re: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

Not sure about you, but the photographs I take with a 35mm lens look so
different from the ones shot with my 75mm that I can't even begin to
compare them in terms of "quality".

Dan C.

At 10:23 AM 22-09-00 -0800, Matt Morgan wrote:
>>>Why compare 1.4 to 2?
>Did you really expect them to be comparable?<<
>
>Why not? I don't know, which is why I'm asking the questions. My perception,
>maybe wrongly, is that this is all about the superior quality of Leica glass
>and the quality of the image it produces. I didn't know that there are
>different levels of quality based on the speed of the lens. If this is true,
>I might have made different choices. Unless you are just talking about
>f-stops and not maximum apertures.
>
>I'm acquiring my kit at the moment at one major piece per month. The first,
>with the M6 TTL .85, was the 35mm f2. The results from this lens are truly
>astounding, so I expected, maybe with slight differences, that the image
>quality of all the Leica lenses would be on some sort of par and that's why
>it's worth spending over 10,000 GBP on the Leica kit.
>
>Now, instead of `expecting' the same quality, I find myself `hoping' that
>the 75mm 1.4 will be equal to the 35mm f2. However, does your message imply
>that it can only be compared to the 50mm f1.4, and that my next lens after
>the 75mm, which is the 90mm APO f2, can only be compared to the 35mm f2?
>Apologies if I've misunderstood.
>
>I pick up my first results from my new 24mm f2.8 today. Hopefully, I will
>gain a better idea of the differences in Leica glass at different speed
>lenses.
>
>>>Did you compare the same scenes?<<
>
>Not a test card, but pretty much the same scenes. Mostly of my baby daughter
>both interior and exterior, that's why I notice the difference.
>
>So are you saying that if I expose the 50 `lux at f2, it would be on a par
>with the 35 `cron wide open?
>
>Because I'm just in the `acquisition' stage at the moment, and want to
>ensure that I make the best and informed choices, (purpose of the LUG), it
>could be that I'm just thinking too critically about these things. Once this
>stage is over and I accept and get used to the gear I have and focus on the
>projects and images I want to produce, this constant stream of comparing
>will hopefully fade away.
>
>Although for my own purposes of use I want fast lenses, my ultimate aim is
>to replicate the fantastic quality, and `buzz' that it generated, that I
>first saw with a great photographer in Australia years ago with his Leica
>images. They just `snapped' out of the picture and the more I found out
>about Leica and the images it is capable of producing, I have never seen any
>equal from any other cameras and lenses.
>
>Thanks, Matt.
>
>
>----------
>>From: Mike Quinn <mlquinn@san.rr.com>
>>To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
>>Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?
>>Date: Thu, Sep 21, 2000, 8:48 pm
>>
>
>> Why compare 1.4 to 2?
>> Did you really expect them to be comparable?
>> Did you compare the same scenes?
>> If you shoot both at 1.4 I think you'll prefer the 50mm 'lux.
>
>