Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/11/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I am late on this - and as those tests have been done before, I won't go into much detail. to begin with - I got the Nikkor just because I knew it _is_ an awfully nice lens! And I don't forget that the 2.5 was designed more than 20-30 years ago, while the 2.8 was computed some 10 years ago. I did the tests on 2 Fuji 50 ASA slide films developed simultaneously. My F3 has got centre-weighted aperture priority metering, so I set My R7 to the same mode (in order the camera metering patterns would basically act the same way). First - the colour saturation the 90/2.8 provided was obviously deeper - one could see this with a naked eye. It was actually a blow to me. In a different age I would have written this down to 2 different films / 2 different processors / 2 different - separete developings, but the films were the same batch, developed side by side. Then I took out my microscope and chose 3 middle-of-the-roll frames from each film for evaluation - it was a brick wall, shot from a tripod, excellent source of fine detail. The 3 frames on each film were shot - wide open (f2.5 & f2.8) - at f8 - and completely stopped down. The 2.8 outperformed the 2.5 in terms of sharpness quite visibly - but the most spectacular difference seemed to be with both lenses stopped down! 2.8 provided a slide with a considerable deeper DOF. In short - technically the Leica lens is capable to provide slides/negs for signifficantly bigger blow-ups. That's about it in brief. Yours Martin I for one would like to see the test results for those two lenses. I, too, would expect the Leica to be better but the Nikkor 105/2.5 is an awfully nice lens. Mike D Right - we shouldn't be slaves of our equipment. I was figuring recently - where do Leicas fit in? For what photo purposes they are best? Ms for candids/street photography - only? Nope; I've used mine both for street photos and landscapes. I've used it for portraiture, too, but not classical style - that would be a little short of challenge - but maybe not (I don't expect to use it with lenses longer than 75mm - and then I haven't got one). Rs for nature/landscape/portraiture/macro? Partially - because nothing beats landscape shots on large format. On advice of fellow LUGer Pablo Kolodny I comparatively tested Nikon 105/2.5 & Leica 90/2.8 lenses. Well, I am now figuring in what way to present the results for you all to see - I haven't studied the archives; maybe these tests have been done before. But one thing is certain. No matter how you put it, Leica IS superior. I bow my head to its engineers and designers. But then - does it mean I am getting rid of my Nikon - no. So maybe them Leicas are best for being collector's items??? ;-)) Martin Mārtiņš Zelmenis wrote: "What I tried to say was: for me nothing beats Leica - and Nikon Fs (I've got MF Nikons only). And I perfecty understand - what works well for one person, doesn't work for another." I think your second sentence here is the most important point. Some years ago I had a very nice black plain prism F that I'd found in a pawn shop, and I sold it for two reasons: 1) it was in far too good condition to remain in the hands of a 'user' like me, it belonged with someone who would look after it a bit better and 2) I had too many cameras and needed to have a clear out. When it came to a choice between getting rid of the F or the Nikkormat FT3, I had to admit that *for me* the FT3 was the more useful picture taking machine. - -- David Morton dmorton@journalist.co.uk "The more opinions you have, the less you see." -- Wim Wenders. - -- 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html