Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry, but to me 3-dimensional look is NOT achieved by <good overall sharpness>! Far from it! Seems we are talking of different subjects. It's not DOF that creates this effect, but foreground <slightly> out of focus, with a distinctly separated foreground - and middleground, too. And that's an effect you can create with nearly every camera that's got manual controls.. I don't know if it's correct, but I'd sooner characterize the typical <Leica lens look> in terms of <image plasticity> - but then I may be wrong in my choice of the word. I'd bet the lady's using a Summaron 35/3.5 that's - if not for FLARE (that creates some peculiar glow under certain lighting - and may ruin your shots if you use it as a modern Leica lens that can handle all light conditions) - is a true Leica lens in terms of this same <plasticity> and resolution, no matter how denigrated it is. In short, I regard it a good lens. (And it's not-so-uncommon to do good work with a camera, and not know it's parameters. After all, ASPH 35 lens users here on LUG seemingly unanimously dismiss the benchmark tests they don't like; well, and what if the testers just got to work on some lens, for which the manufacturing quality benchmark slipped? ;-)) ) Martin She's doing good work with a Leica and can't name the camera? Wow! The 35 Summilux was introduced in '61, I think, so doesn't that leave the 35 Summicron (intro. late 50's) or the Summaron (intro mid-50's in M-mount). I wouldn't characterize the Summaron signature as you have below (esp. "three dimensional look"), so if it's Leica at all, then it's probably a Summicron. On the other hand, to an untutored eye, *every* M looks as though it were made in the '50's. Chances are it's a black enamel M4 with matching 'lux, don't you just know . . . Chandos , At 08:32 PM 10/31/01 -0500, you wrote: >A woman today showed me some portraits she had shot recently, and I was >struck by the wonderful soft glow of her subjects, the three dimensional >look, beautiful out-of-focus portions of the pictures and the wide tonal >range of her prints. All this immediately identified them to me as Leica >shots. I questioned her further and she said that the camera and lens were >from the 1950s, and that the lens was a 35mm. She had no further details. So >my question: which of the older lenses (in M mount) produce that wonderful >glow so closely associated with Leica? >-- >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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html