Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Bob, I know this test comparing the 35's 4th and ASPH, when I bought mine I've prefered buy the 4th and the ASPH was just appeared, for me my decisition was the right, when I've later saw these tests I prefer the 4th generation rendition. I can not compare the Elmarit 28 ASPH with the precedent ones. Any one know if there is any test comparing? Saludos cordiales Luis -----Mensaje original----- De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org] En nombre de bob palmieri Enviado el: domingo, 13 de abril de 2008 20:45 Para: lug@leica-users.org Asunto: [Leica] Re: Se ? oritas on the Semana Santa procession (MarkRabiner) On Apr 12, 2008, Mark Rabiner wrote: > I know we're slightly kidding here but on the record I'd like to state > again and weigh in on the side of I think the modern ASPH Leica glass > lacks in my opinion nothing. > I find no reason not to use them. None. > I find no brittleness. No lack of Bokeh. Nothing. Nothing negative. > I have 16x20 fiber darkroom prints from many Leica modern ASPH glass. > They don't look funny in any way that I can tell or anyone's had the > guts to tell me. I should know better than to go here, but I guess that I don't. I don't see anything "funny" in shots taken with this lens. Just like the apocryphal Marlboro, there's a Lot to Like in the ASPH 35. One of these things is likely a great ability to separate the focal plane from the background. But the way in which it accomplishes this is apparently not just by rendering this focal plane in a more acute way. In fact, there's seems to be a fascinating difference between the 4th gen. spherical and the current version in something that looks like depth of field, although my consultant in optical science sez that it's actually more related to the ever-popular bokeh business. When focused on a nearby object wide open, objects far distant from the focal plane are rendered more sharply in the spherical version than in the ASPH. Here's one person's examples: http://www.jimarnold.org/galleries/leica_35_test/ I used to think that this was all governed by the usual depth-of- field tables, but apparently this ain't the case. Here's a statement from Bob Atkins: Depth of field is also NOT directly related to background blur. Depth of field equations tell you over what range of distances objects will appear to be acceptably sharp (or at least not unacceptably unsharp). It tells you nothing about how much blur there will be of objects well outside the depth of field. That's governed by different physical parameters and determined using totally different equations. According to my consultant, it's the wave equations (which take phase issues into account, among other things) that need to be considered in order to explain this seeming breach of all that we hold dear in the depth-of-field formulas. Also, although I haven't done any rigorous tests for this, I hear tell there's enough difference in the distortion of the two that if you put straight lines really close to the edges of the frame (as I often do) there can be some slightly more visible bowing. Here's a recent street snap, shot wide open with a 4th gen 35 that illustrates an instance where I'm really surprised at how well formed the store signs are across the street even though I'm focussed just a few feet in front of the camera. Also, i put some stuff right up to the edges: http://www.pbase.com/bobsworld/image/95559160 So, if you like the way your snaps look when made with a certain lens, trust your instincts. Bob Palmieri _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information