Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Why a 35mm lens?
From: Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:32:38 -0800
References: <3A080DBA.EF460E2B@home.com> <200011070621.HAA10357@d1o915.telia.com>

At 01:55 PM 11/7/00 -0500, Marc James Small wrote:
>Biotar.  Zeiss again!  (How do we spell optics?  Z-E-I-S-S, I keep trying
>to tell you guys!  Leica is adequate, but Zeiss is magnificent.)
>
>Marc

Yes... which is why my Hasselblad gets more use than my Leicas! Hasselblad
Zeiss lenses are wonderful. I recently got a 110/f2.0 lens for my
Hasselblad. What a marvelous piece of glass. Superb photographs even wide
open at f/2.0 . Amazing!

I also shot a wedding (as a guest) on Saturday. I used Agfa Portrait 160 @
240 and T400CN @ 600. Push 1/2 stop. Two M6 bodies, one with 35/1.4 and the
other with 50/1.4 . 75/1.4 in my pocket and switched with the 50 for
certain photographs.

Outstanding results.

Jim

Replies: Reply from Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: Why a 35mm lens?)
Reply from Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net> (Re: [Leica] Re: Why a 35mm lens?)
Reply from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com> (Re: [Leica] Re: Why a 35mm lens?)
In reply to: Message from Ted <tedgrant@home.com> (Re: [Leica]Why a 35mm lens?)
Message from "Alan Hull" <hull@telia.com> (Re: [Leica]Why a 35mm lens?)