Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/10/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Although this reply reeks of "how pregnant is she", here goes: A single or a few scratches, on ANY surface, probably contribute to less OVERALL flare than an uncoated (tiffen) filter. Many fine scratches (the sandpaper effect) are much worse than one big ol' gouge. Many cleaning marks (summarit) probable are about as detrimental as an uncoated filter. A coated filter is probably totally irrevalent in 99.9 percent of the cases. Leica lenses before the mid sixties are VERY easy to scratch (coating)...and are ALSO generally poorer than Nikon or Canon RF lenses-in performance and durability. Later lenses are virtually impossibleto damage with REASONABLE, SANE, CAREFUL use and cleaning. I offer NO science here, just many years of use of all these lenses...in a variety of conditions.....I'd prefer 1966 or later Leica lenses in mint shape. (No, I don't care which version--makes virtually no photographic difference, in any REASONABLE use of 35mm photography) My second choice would be the same lenses with tiny flaws. Then, probably late Cosina stuff, followed by Canon/Nikkor gear from the 60s. Last resort would be Canon stuff from the fifties. No where on the list would be 50s Leica stuff. Most of it was inferior both in original quality (which helped Nikon/canon immensely) and in the way it has stood the test of time. I've used a Summarit for years, but it sucks wind wide open AND IT WAS FREE!!! I've left out Zeiss stuff in Leica mount, because there's virtually NONE available. I did use Zeiss/Nikon stuff on my Contax IIIA, and it's performance was BREATHTAKING, even by today's standards....as I sit and look at a print from one of those negatives!!!-- Now, here's my totally unscientific summary: For most of the valid uses of 35mm photography (prints up to 11x14, dynamic subjects, reportage)....IT DON'T MATTER!!!....ANY of the above stuff is BETTER THAN NECESSARY. I use Leica and Nikon because I >>LIKE<< it. I stress again, this is empirically obtained information. I believe it to be true, but I offer NO science (nor am I interested in any) to either prove or disprove it. Walt On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 11:10:56 -0400 Johnny Deadman <john@pinkheadedbug.com> wrote: > on 10/16/01 9:04 AM, Henry Ambrose at henryambrose@home.com wrote: > > >> I can't get one thing together: it's been continuously stated that <lens > >> front/rear element scratches don't visibly influence image quality> - am I > >> right? > > depends on the scratches > > scribble of cleaning marks on the back element can SERIOUSLY degrade a lens > > -- > John Brownlow > > http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html