Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/06

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

Subject: [Leica] Most portable 135 -- elaborations
From: passaro.vince at gmail.com (Vince Passaro)
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 17:54:58 -0400
References: <1888861861.3773671270588807381.JavaMail.root@dsmdc-mail-mbs12> <2048595167.3774031270588921227.JavaMail.root@dsmdc-mail-mbs12>

Gene,

Indeed I meant to point out that not only was this on a 4/3 but the
Elmarit-M (chrome) is from 1961 and the Nikon at least fifteen years later;
coatings had developed etc etc.

The Elmarit is certainly sharp and has a beautiful, somewhat subdued but
very rich and nuanced way with color. It needs a better camera to hang on as
I find it too front heavy to reliably hand-hold on the G1.

The test arose because some kind of mysterious accident that occurred to my
bag when I wasn't looking (i.e., I have no idea) completely destroyed a
Nikon 35/2 I had in the side pocket and did some damage to the focus ring
(and I suspected possibly jarred the elements) of the Elmar-C, which was in
a puch just below the Nikon 35/2.  The Elmar-C in black and white film had
proved itself as sharp as the Elmarit (Note to Rabs: this judging by 100/200
percent views of the scanned negs -- not real 20" prints). In this test it
was not as sharp until f5.6 and above; indeed the Elmarit was sharper at
f2.8 than the Elmar could manage at f/4.  It shall have to be looked at, as
it's a far better size for the G1. Anyway as I lumbered off to the bedroom
to do the test (we have a long view from there, over a park and across
downtown to the Long Island Sound and beyond), I noticed the 105/2.5 was
loaded and ready on the D40x so it came along as well....

Vince

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:22 PM, <grduprey at mchsi.com> wrote:

> Vince,
>
> On the Elmarit 90, using it on a 4/3's camera will degrade its performance
> compared to a D40x.  Which Elmarit 90 are you using, the M or R version?
>  Also on the 200/4 Telyt, I have one and considering its age, it is a great
> lens, very sharp and good contrast.  I am amazed at how good it is when I
> consider when it was designed and built.
>
> Gene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vince Passaro" <passaro.vince at gmail.com>
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2010 11:48:54 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Most portable 135 -- elaborations
>
> Well on the 200/4 'astounding' front, I guess that word applies to my
> reaction to it since I too got it for about $50 and, unlike Nikon's faster
> 200's, I'd never heard boo said about it or read boo written about it. It
> has a very rich treatment of color and if you take a picture of some trees
> a
> hundred or more yards away you can count the leaves and tell which ones are
> younger. So it astounded *me* at least.
>
> On the 105/2.5 I was quite surprised that it looked better than the Elmarit
> 90. I intend to repeat the test and also to take a light to the inside of
> the Elmarit to see if there's some otherwise invisible haze or something.
> At 200 and 400 percent the differences were almost radical. Now what I
> failed to say but that must be a factor is that the Nikon was on my D40x
> and
> the Elmarit on the G1. The comparative crop sizes then are  180 for the
> Elmarit and almost 160 for the 105. The G1 sensor is 12MP and Nikon is 10,
> on a larger sensor. I don't know enough about sensor technology or the ways
> the different cameras process the images to make any determination of
> whether, or how, those things factor into the outcome. But whatever
> advantage the Nikon has for being larger one would think G1 makes up for
> being far newer.
>
> And yeah, one gets a little ga-ga this time of year around the university.
>
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Sonny Carter <sonc.hegr at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:31 AM, <grduprey at mchsi.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Vince,
> > >
> > > While I agree the Nikon 105/2.5 is a great lens, I had one many years
> > ago,
> > > and certainly better than the 90 Elmar C, it does not outperform the 90
> > > Elmarit R, imho.
> > >
> >
> > Gene, Vince is an Academic; it is late in the semester. They don't get
> out
> > much this time of year.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Sonny
> > http://www.sonc.com
> > http://sonc.stumbleupon.com/
> > Natchitoches, Louisiana
> >
> > USA
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey at mchsi.com) ([Leica] Most portable 135 -- elaborations)