Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/29

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Macro-Micro Stuff
From: "Don Dory" <dorysrus@mindspring.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:44:17 -0500
References: <8B01BE73-4322-11D6-BF14-003065D4DE46@sohogurus.net>

Allan, I have both lenses and yes, the Canon 100 is a very nice lens indeed.
The difference is in the very fine to extreme fine detail.  The Canon 100
has a higher contrast in the 10 to 20 cycles region so when there are edges
in the image the perceived sharpness goes way up, this is much like a high
adjuvancy developer.

The Leica 60 and 100 especially pick up very fine detail(40 cycles and
higher) even in very even light.  For example, imagine a newly opened rose
bud.  The Canon will pick  up the edge of the petals and you will see some
intimation of the veining in the petal but in the Leitz glass you will see
the soft velvet of the texture of the petals.  Assuming good technique and
slower, finer grained film.

This same analogy applies to the new versus old Leitz lenses.  The older
lenses gave good edge sharpness so for example eyelashes looked crisp.  The
new designs let you see the clumping of the mascara, the fine lines and
veins in the eye lid, and texture in the shadows even when you are blowing
out the highlights.  Some prefer the old lenses as the transition to OOF was
generally much smoother so it looked like more was sharp.

Whether it is worth it to you to pay three times the price to get that last
5% of what is in front of you is an artistic decision that no one else can
make for you.

Now, can we stop playing my lens is better than your lens, and go out and
create art or at least memories?

Don
dorysrus@mindspring.com

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

In reply to: Message from Allan Wafkowski <allan@sohogurus.net> ([Leica] Re: Macro-Micro Stuff)