Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt
From: Robert Browne <rbrowne@iopener.net>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:26:08 -0800 (pst)

Gary Todoroff wrote:

 > Well before my first Leica, I saw the difference daily as a darkroom printer
 > in Sweden's largest publishing company. Some negatives under the Focomat IIc
 > enlarger had a unique sharpness and range of contrast. It was as if there
 > were more shades of gray in the negative. As I began to associate negs with
 > photographers and cameras, that "look", I discovered, was from Leicas. Of
 > course, those were lenses of 35 years ago, but it is the reason I still have
 > Leicas and not Nikons today.

There are times when the lens quality is so obvious that the viewer will notice a difference. The first time this happened to me is when I started to use the R system and I used a 100mm f4 macro and APX 25 to shoot black and white portraits for a client. When I picked up the finished prints from my printer his first comment to me was to ask what lens I was using. He said they were the sharpest prints he had ever seen from 35mm. In lenses the law of diminishing returns sets in pretty quickly, but sometimes the difference is worth it. 

Robert Browne

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from "Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com> (Re: [Leica] the 90% rule-long, rambling BS from Walt)