Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Martin Howard wrote: > > Dante A. Stella jotted down the following: > > > There is no inherent rangefinder lens superiority for the 90mm length: > > retrofocus is not an issue, compactness is not really an issue, and realworld > > focusing is less accurate. When you start talking about 85s and 90s, the SLR > > world provides very stiff optical competition. > > Not quite true. I don't have my copy here, but if I remember Günter > Osterloh correctly from his M book, he delves into this somewhat at length, > comparing the M6 (I believe) to a "typical" SLR (probably an R7) in terms of > focussing accuracy. The rangefinder was still more accurate at 90mm focal > length, and I think about equal or maybe a tad less at 135mm. Perhaps > someone with the book at hand could look up the details. > > M. > And that is with a .72 finder and that's what i heard too! a 105 would be the point of no return with that finder... and the 135 being not as accurate as an SLR. By the way what i wanna know is what F stop on the SLR as a 3.5 or f4 135 lens is going to focus less accurately on the groundglass than a 1.4. And ground glasses varied I'd think in their effectiveness. With a .85 finder would we do as well as the slr guys with a 135? and which f stop..... Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA updated temporary Website by "Foxy": http://spokenword.to/rabiner/ (consisting of late night E-mail descriptions of photos)