Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/10/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 10/24/04 4:31 PM, "Richard F. Man" <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> typed: > Well OK, not by specific name, but in the edited version of his 50/1.4ASPH > page: > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/SummiluxASPH/s14-50.html, he > says: > > ***** > ...This does beg the question. The verdict is difficult as the Summilux > 35mm ASPH > > is an outstandingly good lens. But with a gun pointed at my head I would > say that the new Summilux 50mm is slightly ahead at the widest apertures, > especially in the zonal sections of the lens.... > > > He also says that a comparison is impossible because of the wider angle of a 35mm lens over a 50mm lens. He's not saying this this is me: (although I cant see him disagreeing but who knows): A 50mm lens as the normal or close to it lens of the 35mm format and is therefore easier to design and make to the highest specs than an optic which deviates from the normal. And more efficiently which means cheaper. You get the best quality and for the least bucks. A rarity in life. So enjoy it! And especially in comparison to optics in the wide direction (I'm pretty sure). Where you loose contrast and all kinds of things fast. And especially wide open. And especially with a fast lens wide open. There is a conception which I think of as a misconception that the sharpest lenses in a lens pantheon would be its short telephoto. Most people I knew thought it was a given that the 105 2.5 Nikor was sharper than any of the 50's and then the 105 macro 2.8 was shaper than still than THAT. I never did think that having read the thing early on on how the 50's should be sharper. Another reason why I loved the 50's. They were so normal. You either had a crew cut or a flat top. And that was that. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/