Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/11

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: Foveon chip
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:26:43 -0500

Now Austin...;-)...IF Leica made a 20 1.8, and IF I could afford it, I'd
love to have and use one. (Hey, I'm the guy who sold my Nikon 28 1.4 - a
very good lens - and got the Summicron 28 - giving up the stop for the
quality in a case where I at least didn't have to go past f 2 in terms of
giving up speed. Anyway, as neither Leica nor Nikon make a 21 or 20 faster
than f 2.8, I figured I'd spend $349 for the Sigma to use on those occasions
when I really wanted to avoid flash and really wanted an extra stop. (And,
if the truth be known, yesterday I mounted the Sigma on my 1972 Nikon F
body, kissed it goodbye, and watched it take of for 3 months or so with my
19-year-old on his "I'm going to play On The Road" great adventure. My guess
is I'll see the 19-year-old again, and, probably, the F - I'm not betting on
the Sigma.:-) )

I'm not saying I'm going to run out to buy a Sigma digital camera. What I am
hoping and assuming is, IF - IF, Jim - this new chip is anywhere near as
good as it's supposed to be,that Nikon, Canon, etc, will also be making use
of it in the not too distant future.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Austin
Franklin
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:53 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: Foveon chip



> <Actually, I do use the Sigma 20 1.8 for film and it is
> surprisingly good -
> <no, it's not an M 21 ASPH - but what is? - and it is 1.5 stops faster.
> <(Built like an oatmeal box, though.;-))
>
>
> B.D.
>
> I had in the past some Sigma lenses: 28-70 f1:2.8, 400mm f1:5.6 and a
> strange zoom 135-400. The optical quality was never a problem ,
> not in Leica
> or CZ league of course, they were not bad lenses but the construction
> quality was so bad...
>
> KR
>
> Felix

As both of you said (in your own words), "not in Leica or CZ league"...then
WHY ON EARTH are you using Leica lenses, if you would certainly settle for
"less"?  I just don't understand that.  You acknowledge that you can SEE
differences in your Leica images, but all of a sudden a "lesser" lense on a
digital camera gives you results you would be "happy with"?  Something is
amiss here...  Sounds to me like you are lowering your
standards...somehow...because it's "digital"?

"Bah" (not baa...) I say!

Austin

- --
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