Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Mark. I for one will opt for "semi" retrofocus short lenses, e.g., Elmarit 21mm and 24mm ASPH. The more symmetrical lenses are the more light fall-off, which is (at least for the moment) more remarkable and less pleasing on digital sensors than on film. You may want to compare closely the test images given at the site. Indeed, the Biogon do not differ visibly from Summicron ASPH. I have no idea to what extent the new Biogon is less retrofocus than Summicron ASPH, though. That said, I expect MUCH from the coming Biogons. Cheers, MIKIRO Mark Rabiner wrote: > On 4/2/05 8:06 PM, "Karen Nakamura" <mail@gpsy.com> typed: > > >>At 4:11 PM -0800 05.4.2, Philip Kwong wrote: >> >>>Here's a review of the 35mm F2 >>>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2005/03/28/1240.html >>> >> >>I've posted a very rough abbreviated translation of the main points on my >>blog: >> >>http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/archives/2005/04/link_carl_zeis.html >> >> >>It's a very very very lengthy review, so I couldn't do everything. >> >> >>Karen Nakamura > > > > Not to not let Biogons be Biogons but what the heck really is a Biogon? > It's been suggested on some website I just goggled that the word has come > to > be meaningless. > Used to have meaning. > Now no longer does. > > It's come to mean a wide angle lens which protrudes back more into the > camera body than other lenses normally do.. > But not necessary a true non retrofocus wide angle lens. > Is this Biogon 35mm F2 a retrofocal design or not? > > The Distagon a retrofocal wide angel design not protruding far back into > the > body. And so on. > > I'm under an impression that I think is probably wrong. > Here is is: > In rangefinder photography we have a wide angle advantage because we can > use > true wide angle lenses. Lens which are not just teles turned upside down > and > put under intense computer scrutiny. > > But with the M6 we've now a meter in the camera. (with the M5 that is) > And those lenses cant just go right back to the film plan anymore. > They have to make room for the meter's path. > > But I'ts my understanding which I now question that this is relative. > That it can still protrude back further than the glass made for SLR's > typically do, with out the mirrors locked up that is. > > Is that right? > I can easily see how it might not be. > To retrofocus or not to retrofocus. That is the question. > > Is there such a thing as a lens which is not strictly retro but is more so > than another lens is? Like our 24 ASPH for instance? > Or are they either retro or not retro. And there is no sliding scale. > > The new Biogon looses two whole stops in the corners. > I find that immensely gratifying. Why? > Because it suggests that this really is a non retrofocus wide angel lens. > > And if it is retrofocus I'd consider buying it. > Seeing how it tests out against my current ASPH Summicron. > And conceivably getting rid of the Summicron if it tests out like I think > it > might. > In other words. "trade in" the ASPH Summicron for the Biogon. > > But we'll see. > > Symmetrical design does not suggest "Biogon" to me. > > Or it would be NogoiB. > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ >