Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/09

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

Subject: [Leica] One Big Expensive Leica Lens
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 18:23:13 -0500
References: <C8D6617D.4CDB%mark@rabinergroup.com>

As in a theory of relativity and subjective comparisons.

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 9, 2010, at 17:14, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:

> Because I know that a 250 on a Hasselblad is a is a 180 on a Leica.
> 
> 
> --------------------
> Mark William Rabiner
> Photography
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
> mark at rabinergroup.com
> 
> 
>> From: Frank Filippone <red735i at earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:46:16 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] One Big Expensive Leica Lens
>> 
>> Mark.. are you talking about an enlarged print or the actual "negative"?
>> Given that the lensescome from Leica and Zeiss, lens quality is probably
>> pretty equal... YOu might want to ask POP PHOTO to do a lens 
>> comparison.....
>> 
>> WHy do you think a 1600mm would have a much larger magnification than a 
>> 1700?
>> The difference is 100/1600 or roughly 6%??
>> 
>> Frank
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com>
>>> Sent: Oct 9, 2010 1:41 AM
>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] One Big Expensive Leica Lens
>>> 
>>> Will I'd think somebody could do the math and then they do and you're 
>>> right
>>> and I'm wrong I'll concede.
>>> But my  money goes to Leica is going to have not a slightly more
>>> magnification. But a lot more.
>>> You read it here first.  Its in writing. Right here.
>>> Prove me wrong I'll eat crow with Bosco.
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> Mark William Rabiner
>>> Photography.
>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>>> mark at rabinergroup.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> From: Frank Filippone <red735i at earthlink.net>
>>>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>>> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 23:46:09 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
>>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] One Big Expensive Leica Lens
>>>> 
>>>> Not quite correct... 1600 or 1700mm .... about the same FL and
>>>> magnification.
>>>> 
>>>> The difference is in the recorded angle of view....
>>>> The Leica is set for 35mm, the Zeiss for 6x6.
>>>> The angle of view on  the Leica lens is about half .... only because the
>>>> Leica
>>>> Film is recording the center of the image....
>>>> 
>>>> Frank
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Not sure how you interpreted what I wrote.  The Leica lens will
>>>>> magnify more.  A lot more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Marty
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] One Big Expensive Leica Lens)