Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doug Perhaps even when Leica doesn't emphasize resolution, the resulting lens ends up resolving better than most. Actually, I'd rather have a lens designed for greater contrast. Much better image characteristics, IMHO. In the lens design book that Canon put out a few years back they gave examples of images from lenses with high res/low contrast versus high contrast/low res. The latter won hands down. It wasn't even a contest. Micro contrast has more impact than resolution on perceived "sharpness". I'm no expert on optics, but I know when I see something I like. Dave - -----Original Message----- From: Douglas Herr [mailto:telyt@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:03 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm R Lens recommendation - ------Original Message------ From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com> To: "'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'" <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: June 5, 2001 6:39:11 PM GMT Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm R Lens recommendation >>> I once read that the 35/2-R was designed with emphasis on contrast over resolution. I don't know if that's the case, but it sounded interesting. I have a late 35/2-R and it's a great lens. It's fantastic paired with Kodachrome -- or any b/w film. <<< If that's true I'd be curious to see what an emphasis on resolution would have produced. As it is the resolution is great, and the contrast, especially the lack of veiling flare, is exceptional. A former LUGger mentioned some flare in odd circumstances, like when the sun was in certain places outside the field of view but I suspect that was from reflections inside the camera's mirror chamber. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com