Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks Gene, I wouldn't mind a Leica SLR at all, but I need autofocus (I think) and absolutely digital (I know) with jacked up exposure indexes. That kind of limits the choices. I'm keeping an eye out for a good Leica SLR though. The local store in Oslo was loaning them out for a week at a time in December but I missed out on that. I was hoping to try one. I write "I think" about autofocus because if I would just learn that the difference between 15 and 25 meters is just a couple of millimeters on the focussing barrel I could get by without it. I need some physical notches there that I can flip back and forth between. Best, Daniel On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 grduprey@rockwellcollins.com wrote: > > > > > Daniel > > What brand of SLR do you have? I f Leica, the 28 - 70 works just fine and > can be had for a song these days. Not the most popular of R lenses, but > quite nice for most situations requiring that range of focal lengths. > > Gene > > > > > Daniel Ridings > <daniel.ridings@muspro.uio.n To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > o> cc: > Sent by: Subject: RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience > owner-leica-users@mejac.palo > -alto.ca.us > > > 01/20/2004 12:49 PM > Please respond to > leica-users > > > > > > > There's one single situation I'm involved in that the foot-zoom doesn't > work and that's when I'm taking pictures of the team skaters. I place > myself higher up in the middle of the rink. A 45 would be perfect when > they're in the middle of the rink and a 70 when they're at either end. > > So I'm actually on the look-out for one of those otherwise useless zooms: > 35-70. Absolutely no useful range in normal conditions, but I would look > pretty silly pendling back and forth on the sidelines at breakneck speed > to zoom with my feet :) > > Daniel > > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, B. D. Colen wrote: > > > Funny, my problem with the 75 wasn't focusing - it was focal length; 75 > > is a neither-nor length - too tight when you want a 50, not tight enough > > when you want a longer lens. I actually tested it out once and found it > > only got me one of my steps closer to the subject, and that's not close > > enough if I want to get closer than a 50 would bring me. So for me, the > > 85 is definitely superior, as is a 90. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Marty > > Deveney > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:53 AM > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > Subject: RE: [Leica] Nikon RF 85/2 Lens - User Experience > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Coming to the rescue of a favourite lens . . . ! > > > > B.D. wrote: > > >Nope - he means the Nikon 85 1.4 AIS lens, which as near as I can tell, > > > > >is identical to the current autofocus version. Both are killer lenses, > > >with a "finger print" indistinguishable from >that of the magnificent - > > > > >or it would be if it were an 85 ;-) - Leica >M 75 1.4. > > > > No, and yes. The AF 85/1.4 Nikkor has internal focusing, the AiS does > > not. The AF has nine elements in eight groups, the AiS has seven > > elements in five groups (even if several Nikon sites say it has seven > > elements in nine groups!?). Clearly a different design. The results > > are very similar. In extreme tests the AF has some colour fringing and > > the AiS a little distortion and is softer at the edges. Depending on > > what you do the softness might be an advantage. The AF is sharper if > > you like taking pictures of little B&W lines and developing for > > acutance. People argue about this, of course. > > > > None of this matters much in real life. I kept the AiS, mostly because > > it has a 'look' more like the Leica-M 75/1.4, which although I love it, > > try as I might, I cannot focus consistently on an M camera. > > > > Gary wrote: > > >Oh please. While the Nikkor may be sharp, the sun has yet to rise or > > >set on the day a Nikkor has the bokeh of a Leica. > > > > If there is a difference between these particular Nikkor and Leica > > lenses, it's _not_ in the bokeh. The optical formulas are so similar as > > to make the bokeh of this pair almost indistinguishable (shall we > > conduct a test!?). The real differences lie in the Leica having better > > coating (making it less flare-prone and having slightly better colour > > saturation) and tighter QC (meaning you're less likely to get a 'dog' > > and that it costs three times as much). Of course the Leica is a 75, > > the Nikkor an 85. As B.D. points out, that probably is the most > > significant difference apart from the fact that the Nikkor attaches to > > an SLR and the Leica attaches to an M rangefinder. > > > > The Leica 80/1.4 R might be stellar too, but I never tried it because > > I'm not a big fan of the R cameras. The best of all the 85's may well > > be the Carl Zeiss 85/1.2 http://www.cameraquest.com/z8512.htm but it has > > a 1 metre close-focus and is like hen's teeth. The Zeiss 85/1.4 is also > > amazing. > > > > Now, let's all go find one of Kyle's posts and read the last line . . . > > > > Marty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Get your Free Global name@sharkattacks.com e-mail address at > > http://www.sharkattacks.com > > -- > > 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 > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html