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

[Buzz Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

The issue, Matt, is that each of the various Leica lenses is different, not
better or worse, but different from its brothers and sisters.  Each lens
fills a certain purpose and the photographer must decide which purpose she
or he wishes to fulfill.  It is not so simple a matter "as Summicrons are
sharper than Sumiluxes" (and I am not saying that they are).  Which lens to
buy or use is a highly subjective decision based upon numerous variables;
image quality, lens speed, lens size and heft, lens shade configuration, and
on and on, depending upon what matters to you the photographer.  I, for
instance, favor smaller and lighter gear and thus prefer a pre-aspheric 35
Summicron to its aspheric sibling, in spite of the aspheric's redoubtable
sharpness wide open.

It sounds as if you have given a great deal of thought to the lens qualities
that count most to you.  I haven't used them all, but I have to imagine that
all Leica lenses produced in the past fifteen years will give you some sort
of "buzz."  However, I propose that at and above a certain level of
equipment the "buzz" derives more from the capability of the photographer
than the quality of the photographer's lens.

	Buzz Hausner

- -----Original Message-----
From: Matt Morgan [mailto:mattmorgan@pdseurope.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 2:24 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?


>>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.