Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Seth Rosner contends that my equating glow with distortion is ... Rubbish. My favorite lens, the DR Summicron, "glows" at all apertures. Flare is gone by f/2,8 except when light sources are within the frame. Distortion virtually imperceptible. At apertures f/4 through f/8 it is sharper (better resolution and equal contrast) than any other 50/2 Summicron Leitz-Leica has made. ---- Boy, Seth, I've seen some BS in my day, but to right "flare is gone by f 2.8 except when light sources are within the frame" is a real corker. What that translates to in English is that the lens is flare prone. Period. Assuming that you're doing photography of anything except rocks and trees with the light behind you, how can you with a straight face say that a lens is flare proof "except when light sources are within the frame?" That's a common photographic situation. And to say that flare is gone by 2.8, when it's an f2 lens, and people presumably by a lens to use it at it's maximum aperature? Please. And to say that distortion is "virtually imperceptible" means that it is perceptible - with the naked eye. You may like the lens - that's fine. I owned one back when and I was happy with it at the time - I have some images I took with it that I like to this day. But looking at them, I can see that they "glow" - they are just a tad soft. And yes, they are focused properly. ;-) Today Leica manufacturers some of the best lenses ever created for 35 mm photography - but that's today. And Erwin Puts? Don't go there. ;-) And saying that I am on the warpath against Leica because I am criticizing lenses manufactured 50 years ago is like saying that I'm on the warpath against Ford if I point out that the cars Ford is manufacturing today make the cars of 30 years ago look like junk heaps.