Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 03:18 PM 10/23/00 -0400, B. D. Colen wrote: >and on the other we have a bunch of guys who >call the flare and veiling of the old, optically inferior lenses, the >"classic leica glow." The 'quality' of any final product of artistic endeavor is and always will be a matter of personal preference. If the glare and haze and other 'inferiorities' of an old lens provides you with the results that you find pleasing, why should anyone chuckle about this? Granted, romanticising the 'inferiorities' of old glass into something that should always be sought by everyone is kind of reminiscent of Aesop's "Fox without a tail", but exclusively ruling out the old lenses because the new optics are "better engineered" (and cost so much) comes off to me as elitist. The new lenses resolve better but have entirely different characteristics. They are 'too good' to replicate that glow of glare and haze found in the old lenses that many find appealing to seek in their work. Why not use those tools which will best give you the image qualities that you most desire to pursue. Sometimes breaking with convention gives us a more likeable product than adhering strictly to it. If smearing Vaseline on your Summicron gives you results to smile at, smear away and have fun. :) If we all used exactly the same equipment for exactly the same reasons this list would be no fun at all. Carpe Luminem, (hazy or otherwise) Michael