Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/03/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't understand this discussion... You choose whatever f-stop you need to get the result you desire, no? If I need depth of field I close, when there isn't any light, I open the aperture, change ISO or use a tripod. What is so complicated? That goes for all brands of lenses. All the best from the south of France! Tarek ------------------------------------------------- Tarek Charara <http://www.pix-that-stimulate.com> NO ARCHIVE Le 28 mars 10 ? 04:13, Mark Rabiner a ?crit : >> Frank writes: >> "If you are shooting at f5.6 Leica lenses are a bit of a waste of >> money. My Leica 50mm f1.4 is noticeable better that my Nikon 50mm >> f1.4 >> -at- f1.4, but at f5.6 i see very little difference. The price >> differential is almost 10:1. >> That is my experience in general, sure all lenses get better stopped >> down, very particularly the cheap ones. What makes Leica worth the >> money (if you have it) is it loses so little quality as you open up, >> compared to others. >> IME." >> >> >> I echo Franks opinion. A number of years ago one of the big US photo >> magazines did a survey of all major manufacturer 50mm lenses on the >> market. I forgot whether it was Modern Photography or Popular >> Photography. The survey included resolution, flare, fall off, >> distortion and all the usual suspects. While there were distinct >> differences wide open, not always in Leica's favor, when closed down >> to f8, all lenses were virtually identical. This finding was more or >> less confirmed by Canon in their detailed lens guide of 1969. In fact >> Canon said that when it came to photographic quality, lenses designed >> for lesser maximum apertures were better at reduced lens stops than >> faster lenses. Generally a f3.5 lens stopped down to f8 would >> outperform a f2 lens stopped down to the same aperture. The slower >> lenses had fewer elements and were of simpler design. Given the >> technology of that period this implied lower flare and internal >> reflection. Erwin Puts concludes that the f3.5 50mm Elmar lasted so >> long in the quality lens arsenal because the design was so simple >> that >> technical improvements in lens construction, including coating and >> rare earth glasses, made little difference in actual performance. I >> don't know if advances in lens design have closed the gap but if you >> commonly shoot at apertures of f5.6 through f16, then $3000 >> objectives >> are overkill. Better to use the money on a two year supply of single >> malt scotch or a lifetime supply of Belgian ale (or 100 Tilly hats). >> Larry Z >> > > > I love you guys' opinions. You should all agree with each other. > Any commercial photographer who shot 99 percent of their jobs they > were > hired to do wide open would never collect and would be laughed out > of town. > Wide open shooting with its super limited in focus depth of field > look is a > rare look applicable for a small minority of the photographs people > want to > be looking at or hire people to make for them. > Photography is not rhetorical philosophy. Its a craft and a job. > Does "Leica shooters always shoot wide open" sound good to you? > It sounds just a great to a working photographer as > '"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves > Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;" > Its not how things sound or read that counts. Its how they look in > print. > More often than not the client wants to see not just the subject but > also > the environment that subject is sitting in. not a mass of wonderful > bokeh. > > > > [Rabs] > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information