Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] eye to eye
From: bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Thu Aug 11 17:42:54 2005

There's no question that Doug's images are outstanding, or that many of the
Leica lenses are outstanding. I have owned - and often used - the Nikon
manual focus 180 2.8 ED, and I can tell you that it's outstanding, and
produces images with fine detail - and I'm not talking about "journalism." I
have not, however, shot with the equivalent Leica lens, so I can't make a
comparison.


On 8/11/05 7:24 PM, "Don Dory" <don.dory@gmail.com> wrote:

> B.D.
> Contrary to popular opinion, the 180 APO's from Leica are superior by
> quite a wide margin to the Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or MInolta
> equivalents.  It is the difference between the 400 Canon lens that
> Doug was gifted and the 280 Leica lens that got bent.  For journalism
> purposes I wouldn't bother but for prints of critters where seeing
> every hair, crevace, scar, or any other tiny detail is important to
> you then Leica is the ticket.
> 
> The difference is in the ability to record really tiny details, what
> the 40 cycle line on an MTF chart shows.  The Japanese glass has great
> contrast and resolves the larger of the fine details really well, but
> for seeing everything that was there on the film or on the sensor then
> go with the gnomes from Solms.
> 
> I own the 200 F2.8 Canon and the 180 F3.4 APO currently.  I have
> plenty of slides from the Nikon and the 180 Summicron to back up
> comments.  But heck, just go to Dougs website and look at his images.
> 
> Don
> don.dory@gmail.com
> On 8/11/05, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Despite my kidding Doug yesterday, that 180 ED 2.8 Nikon lens is indeed a
>> stunning piece of glass. I haven't used the Leica equivalent, but I would 
>> be
>> quite surprised if it's any better, red dot or no red dot.
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/10/05 8:53 PM, "Dennis Painter" <dennis@hale-pohaku.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am sure, but the 180 f2 has a stunning price!
>>> 
>>> You did mean f2, not the f2.8 that  Doug mentioned?
>>> 
>>> Alastair Firkin wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I can put my hand up and place a vote for the 180 f2: stunning piece of
>>>> glass.
>>>> Great capture of the two foes!
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> On 10/08/2005, at 10:21 PM, Doug Herr wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Don, the camera came into my hands through a long a twisted (literally)
>>>>> route from my father, who was the original owner.  It gives me an
>>>>> opportunity to try lenses at reasonable cost before I go all-out for
>>>>> the
>>>>> good stuff.  I've been lusting for the Leica 180mm f/2.8 APO but the
>>>>> bank
>>>>> manager sez "no way" so with the Nikkormat I get to try a decent 180
>>>>> f/2.8
>>>>> to see if I wnat to make a priority of the Leica lens.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Doug Herr
>>>>> Birdman of Sacramento
>>>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com
>>>> 
>>>> Alastair
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Leica Users Group.
>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Leica Users Group.
>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information



In reply to: Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] eye to eye)