Re: [Leica] Film for school play

[Nick Poole <nick.botton@camphill.org.uk>]

>On 12 Dec 00, at 17:16, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>
>>  Groundglass can be nice but let me tell you that a the 105/2.5 was my
>>  main lens for more than a decade but my Elmarit 90 M blew it out of
>>  the water and my new Summicron Apo Asph is sublime. I'll never go back
>>  to Nikon. I just use the 100 2.8 macro sometimes. I may get a Contax
>>  SLR with a Zeiss 100 for that groundglass thing again. And macro. But
>>  maybe an Leica SLR.
>
>Big gulp... For my N**** I've got 180mm, 85mm, 35mm that I've
>used extensively. Others that I have I haven't liked as much.
>Opinions as to the Leica R lenses in these (or close) focal lengths
>compare?

I went that route; had the 200mm, 105mm, 55mm Micro, 24mm Nikkors,
and now have the 180mm, 90mm, 60mm Macro, 50mm, 35mm and 24mm
Leica glass. When I made the switch I noticed a very obvious difference.

All the Nikkors produce superbly sharp, high contrast images, with a hint of
*hardness* to the image that I have no adequate word for. The Leitz glass is
to my eye just as sharp, if slightly less contrasty perhaps, but with 
far subtler
tonality, by which I mean the tones seem smoother. (Erwin will know what to
call these effects better than I do - Erwin, come in please!) Fine nuances of
close shades of the same tint seem to me better differentiated by the Leica
glass, most noticeably so in those lenses designed specifically for low light
work, the 35mm, 50mm and 80mm Summilux's. Cross over to the M lenses
and you're in for a BIG surprise when you see the 'drawing' (as they used
to call it) of the Noctilux lens. Just remarkable!

But if your work is for the press, the print boys have always favoured
the high contrast of Nikkors because it holds up well in newsprint.
Nick.