Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]thanks to all for the advice. Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabinergroup.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] R 90mm Elmarits sweet spot? > On 4/13/04 9:30 PM, "Mike Quinn" <mlquinn.mail@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > I think it's too much coffee... > > Try it in good light at 1/500 (without the strobe) and see if it still > > looks soft. > > > > On Apr 13, 2004, at 3:06 AM, eric wrote: > > > >> Images always seems a bit too soft (well, yes compared to the razor > >> sharp > >> 60mm), but I like deadly sharp focus. > > > >> (snip) > >> Any suggestions? - I try to shoot the 90mm at 5.6. I am usually using > >> strobes, so shutter speed is 1/100. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > It's just a tricky question because not only are we comparing the 90 > Summicron APO ASPH M against the 90 Elmarit M but we've got the 100 macro R > thrown in as a curve ball to skew any argument to pieces. > I've extensively shoot the 90 Summicron APO ASPH M with the 90 Elmarit M > with Balcar studio strobes and I'd not dream of shooting them at anything > close to f 5.6. Or I just never have. I'm usually at f11 where it is plenty > sharp and I've less a chance of missing my focus. > I have a hard time telling the difference between the two 90's; I use them > both on two bodies at the same time at these middle f stops. > At f 2.8 the Summicron would win out over the Elmarit but you'd not be using > strobes very likely at f 2.8. If you wanted to see the difference you'd be > using a solid tripod and slower films. > The 90 APO Asph is of the most modern line of Leica lens design technology. > The other lenses represent slightly older generational technologies of Leica > lens design. Not an issue with normal handheld photography or shooting at > f11 with studio strobes though. > The 100 is a macro lens optimized for close in and flat field as a macro is > supposed to be. It might be harder to focus at middle distances with the > short throw. And it is used with a groundglass and mirror for better or > worse. > I think the 60 is a different focal length from a 90 or 100 and therefore a > direct comparison is not possible to be made. I'd kill for one because of > the focal length among other things but not because I'd think it would > clearly win out over the 90 or 100's in the clarity of the pictures it would > produce in middle f stops or else ware. I severely doubt it would. > A 90 or 100 is a lens with some throw. Some grabbing power. > A 60mm is cropped normal (50mm). A formalized hyper corrected normal in this > case and in this case optimized for macro. Perfect for me. > > I just shot a few hundred captures or whatever you want to call it of a red > headed model in my "studio" on the white backdrop. I used the 60 macro > Nikkor the whole time. But at 1.5 it becomes a 90. > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > > > > New-improved > http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >