Re: [Leica] Re: Canon LTM, Winogrand, etc.

[slobodan dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net>]

I know that one of winogrand's lens' was a 28mm, the 3rd black version. I think that was his last prevailing piece of glass, judging from the crud that was being published during the later part of his life and somewhat undifferent career. I used to see him in Venice and Santa Monica regularly with it. Funny thing, any time he saw someone with a leica he would give them a wide berth. I guess he wasn't interested in talking shop or being acknowledged. Weird guy, from what I saw of his shooting style, it was more an excercise in skulking than photographing. But then how does one stay incognito with a couple of leicas around one's neck  and a beat up old camera bag in a town where just about every rub has a piece of shoulder candy.


Slobodan Dimitrov


- ------Original Message------
From: "SML" <inyoung@jps.net>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Sent: December 10, 2000 9:56:07 PM GMT
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Canon LTM, Winogrand, etc.


Hello,

  I just learned that Canon made the 50/1.5 in LTM and wonder if it is
comparable to the Leitz 50/1.5 Summarit.  I have heard that the Canon 50/1.4
and 50/1.8 are excellent lenses that could be on par to the Leica lenses.
Any information will be appreciated.

Best Wishes,
David

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Canon LTM, Winogrand, etc.


>
> I've had both Canon LTMs - the 35/1.8 and the 35/2.  The 35/1.8 is soft
> wide-open but it is a very smooth lens (probably underpriced at the usual
> $300).  It is not a contenda with a pre-asph Summicron sharpness-wise, but
> it makes nice pictures.  It has summicron-level contrast (medium).  I
> found the focus lock to be annoying.
>
> The 35/2, which from all appearances is the 35/1.8 masked down in a newer
> barrel is a high-contrast lens.  Very hot, 1/2 grade.  Whether this is
> from a recomputation, shift in the focus point, or better glass, it is
> competitive with many, if not all,  modern lenses.  The 35/2.8 Zeiss
> Distagon of today was no match at the center.  The 35/2 is very hard to
> find, but it is a fun lens.  Its lens twist is shorter than the 1.8's, and
> it "snaps" into focus in 1/4 turn (vs about 1/3, if I remember).  The 35/2
> also has a tighter DOF scale.  It feels like a miniature SLR lens.  Bokeh
> is a harder, more wiry but not still pleasant.
>
> Cheers
> ------------
> Dante Stella
>
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Douglas Cooper wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Winogrand's main lens  was a Canon 28/2.8 LTM. (I had one of these and
it's
> > > a nice lens and, yes, wide open it glows). However he did shoot with
other
> > > lenses, and other cameras.
> >
> > So Sherry's info is off?  Or do you know if one of his other lenses was
the 50/1.4?
> >
> > I'm considering the Canon 35s as well.  The 35/2 is the famous one, and
the 35/1.8 is thought unsharp by Deschert (sp?), but I'm
> > wondering if anyone has compared them in terms of signature.  If I could
find a 35 with the same attributes as the 50/1.4 -- or the
> > DR Summicron -- I'd be a happy guy.  (I'm sure the 35mm pre-Aspherical
Summicron would do the trick, but can't afford one at the
> > moment.)
> >
> > cheers,
> >
> > DC
> >
> >
>
>