Re: [Leica] Mike'n'Marc'n'Zeiss

[D Khong <dkhong@pacific.net.sg>]

First.....
my good friend Marc wrote,
>> Hmm.  For the very first time in my memory, Mike, I must agree with you.
>> Magnificent lenses on a mediocre body.  It is a shame that Zeiss didn't
>> have the brains to produce these in Leica M mount. I would have bought the
>> lot of them!

Then, another friend, Mike Johnston wrote:
>Marc,
>Yes, we hardly ever agree, but here we are even thinking alike--because I
>made a similar comment in my post to you and then deleted it, thinking, no,
>the Luggers will crawl all over me if I say something like that!!
>
>--Mike
>
>P.S. We really do have to stop agreeing like this. People will think we're
>both going soft.
>
>P.P.S. Also the Tessar in my old Contessa is a simply gorgeous lens. The
>camera is a beautifully-built kludge, but the lens is
>sharper'n'you-know-what.
>
>P.P.P.S. And another true connoisseur's lens is the Zeiss 110mm f/2 for the
>Hasselblad. That might be one of those "ultimate lenses"--the ones that make
>you think lenses don't come any better. That one does just about everything
>right. 
>
>

After all the Ps&Ss, I decided to add....
I have noticed that LUGgers are generally becoming more accepting of the
virtues of Zeiss optics. As I have said many times before, they are unto a
class of their own. 

For B&W photography, which is about 90% of my photography, my preference is
for Leica. The main reason is that I can easily get that period look in my
images with an older Leica lens made in that era. While the champions of
the latest Leica optics' performance may wonder why someone would want to
use a 1950 Elmar lens to take pictures nowadays, one must never forget that
while there are those who need the best in optics to make a living, yet
there are those (like myself) who take pictures as an artform. The older
leica glass fits the bill nicely in this aspect. So I keep a good number of
them screwmount glass for this purpose.

My Zeiss G-lenses are another matter. IMO, they are superb in colour
reproduction and saturation and, flame me if you wish, I often think that
they they do this better than my leica lens of even current vintage. 

Put me in Thailand, Cambodia or Timbuktoo, and my first choice would be to
grab my Contax G2 and go. Whether the film I use may be colour or B&W, the
ease of use of the Contax G2 brings home a whole lot of well exposed easily
printable negs, and sharp images. Why? 'Cos with this G2 beast, the
AF+AE+motor drive alone would more than allow me to concentrate on the
picture at hand without the hassle of focussing and getting the right
shutter speed/F-stop. I admit that I sometimes may miss a spontaneous
expression or two, but generally the rest of the images are well worth it.

What am I trying to say?  Just that nowadays, 95% of my photography is now
done with either my Leica-M or my Contax G cameras. My poor Nikon F90 has
not seen daylight for more than two years, my TLR Rolleiflexes see daylight
only for exercizes. Ah..almost forgot. IMO, the best camera for street
photography is none other than the Rollei 35S or SE. But they are the
subject of another discussion.

Dan K.