Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry for the first line in Martian...It should - obviously read... Sorry, Peter, but why... Busy day....;-) B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:55 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm Summilux-M Sorry, Peter, but if by why do we need "visible" clues to the fact that a photo is taken with what is by modern standards an inferior lens in available light? Don't we take photos because we want to make a particular image, or do we take them to show that we shoot with available light? Yes, many of those older, classic, photos are full of flare, are 'soft,' and feature other optical aberrations. But I guarantee you that the photographers who took them would have killed for lenses that would have allowed them to photograph without those optical problems. Is it possible to make wonderful images with those older lenses? Of course. Should everyone rush out and purchase each lens improvement as it appears? Only if their financial or artistic life depends upon them always producing the 'best' possible image - by which I guess I mean, in this case, the image that most closely conveys what the photographer saw when he/she made the photo. Personally, I find nothing charming about a flat, soft, flared-out image. But that's just me. (And if I had to chose between the old summilux 35 and no f 1.4 35, I'd take the old lens without a second's hesitation. Better some image, than no image. But better a sharp, flare free image with good contrast than an image with none of those qualities. B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Peter Klein Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 1:18 PM To: leica-users-digest@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm Summilux-M "Rei Shinozuka" <shino@panix.com> posted a comparison of the classic and ASPH 35mm Summiluxes: > http://www.shinozuka-family.com/35summiluxen/ This is great, Rei. Thanks for posting it. The only thing better would be an "available darkness" shot taken with both lenses. The pictures show something that I've been wondering about for a while. Is it possible for a lens to be too *good* sometimes? There are certain visual cues that tell us that "this is available light shot." A little flare, a little softness, a bit of "glow," coma in the highlights, sketchy detail in the shadows. I have seen shots with the newer lenses that are so good that I dont realize at first that they were taken in dim light--the only clue is narrow depth of field. It almost seems too good, too easy. Is it a lifetime of seeing all those old classic available light photos? Sour grapes because the ASPH costs so much more? A realization that the "flaws" of older lenses can in the right hands be part of one's pallette--a "look" and a way of seeing? Probably a bit of all of this. Now of course, if someone brought me both lenses and said, "you can have either one for free, but only one," I would pick the ASPH without hesitation. I've also noticed in recent years that non-photographers are less and less accepting of optical "flaws" in available light photography. They're still amazed that we can get the shot without flash, but that amazement quickly gives way to: "But it's not sharp! I could get a better shot with my Caniktax super-twinkie zoom-o-blitz." - --Peter Klein Seattle, WA - -- 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