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

[Peterson Arthur G NSSC <PetersonAG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>]

Dan,

I agree with the thrust of your message, and with Buzz's message before it.
But as you "harp to [y]our camera group," you may wish to consider that the
"analogy of writers" is not an apt one.  There would seem to be a good
reason why you "never heard them say, 'Well, I like the Remington rather
than the Smith-Corona.'"  A photographer's medium is the photograph, which
his camera produces through its lens.  On the other hand, what a typewriter
produces is just a typeface, whereas a writer's medium is not a typeface,
but rather the words.  A particular typewriter therefore should be far less
important to a writer than a particular camera and lens (and film,
developer, etc.) to a photographer.  (And in any case, the final, printed
edition of a writer's work will almost certainly appear in a different
typeface from that of his personal typewriter.)

:-)

Art Peterson


- -----Original Message-----
From:	Dan Post [mailto:dpost@triad.rr.com]
Sent:	Friday, September 22, 2000 9:03 AM
To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject:	Re: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?

Buzz-
Wise and sage advice!
I constantly harp to our camera group locally that in most cases it really
doesn't matter what you use (HERESY! BURN 'IM) but what gives you the
results you want.
I drew it to the analogy of writers, and I've hung out with a few, and
lifted quite a few glasses in their company- generally pleasant, and when
writers talk about their work, I have never heard them say, "Well, I like
the Remington rather that the Smith-Corona since the type has a bertter
'bokeh' , and it is sharper...." I may use "Black Warrior" pencils liek
Stephen King supposedly used, but that won't make the quality of my writing
approach his, by a long shot!
Indeed, you have really struck a chord- for all of use who like Leica, but
use whatever suits our fancy, and our style. Lord, it isn't as if Leica is a
'one note' company- despite its long term love of the RF camera. Within the
genre, there are a myriad of LTMS, M and clones, and a large if not larger
selection of lenses to chose from that have been made over the last 65 years
or so. I too love the little Canadian Summicron 35- I sold it, and the buyer
was not happy with it, so I took it back, had Sherry clean and collimate it,
and when I did a coule of test rolls, fell in love with it all over again!
Sure, it's not THEN NEWEST, and it is a tad larger than the Summarron LTM
lens I like on the IIIf, but it is pleanty of lens for my style, and
compact- a very good compromise of features and character.
I thyink that more of the 'newbies' should not aspire to have the latest and
very best- alright if you have the expendable income, and can be profligate
on their hobby, but rather start out with those lenses and cameras like the
M's and LTMs and try them all- I have had R cameras from SLs to an
R7-M2-through M6 (save for the M5) and LTMs from a IIIa to a IIIf- and still
use the IIIc and IIIf. I found that all have certain qualities, and decided
thyat the DLR was not my style, even though the R8 and r6.2 are to me the
quintessential SLRs for manual work. (I still like to drive the camera
myself!)
It's good to hear some really sound advice !
Dan (WAIT! I don't have the Nomex skivvies zipped up yet!) Post
BTW Nomex underwear is not as good for cleaning lenses as is the regular old
cotton.... I haven't tried silk yet! :o)
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Buzz Hausner" <Buzz@marianmanor.org>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?


> 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.
>