Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks a lot Andrew ! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Moore" <moore@comcast.net> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] best all round 50 mm?? > > >have used the 35 mm) I do not want to use a fortune on a lens - I dont need > >the noctilux F 1.0, but I would like go for a lens of max F.2.0 like the > >summicron. Question ?? some of you shooting a lot of 50 mm with experience > >of different optics - what would be the best 50 mm allround optics, with an > >image quality like my 35 mm summicron - would some of the olde optics be as > >good - and what about voigtl?nder? I shoot a lot of pictures with little DOF > >so i prefere not to have optics showing pantagon/hexagon shaped highlights > >in the background > > Ruben: > > I recently got a 50/1.4 and I love it. In the past I've also used the 50/1 > and 50/2 but I no longer have them. I mostly use the 35, like you. The > 50/1.4 is hardly any bigger than the 50/2, offers excellent image quality > and speed, quick handling, and has 12 aperture blades for very smooth out > of focus highlights. Much smaller/lighter/quicker than the Noct, of > course. In terms of resolution it's not quite the cron but certainly a > superb performer. If you're really looking for "35/2 ASPH" image > qualities, the 50/2 cron is probably the better choice -- they both seem a > bit "technical" in their qualities -- whereas the 50/1.4 seems a little > less more tame. I see slightly different uses for them all (35/2, 35/1.4, > 50/2, 50/1.4) but in the end I dislike carrying stuff so I pare down and > pick speed over image quality, at least for my purposes (photojournalism, > people). The 50/1.4 also has the most accurate color reproduction I've > ever seen on a Leica lens (with the exception of the 135/3.4, which seems > equally accurate). > Here's a shot I took tonight from the 50/1.4. I think it was f/2 or > 2.8. Film was color neg 400 rated at 400, scanned 2000 dpi. > > http://www.photogs.org/fosters/diverse1.html > > If you have any specific questions about the use of the 50/1 /1.4 or /2, or > the differences among them, I'll be glad to (try to) answer. > > --Andrew > NO ARCHIVE > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information