Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Remarkably little difference between them at f5.6, especially given the difference in price/size/weight! Still time to start a PAW, I only started this year, and it is useful to show some images that do not stand up on their own and that other peoples taste can be different to your own ;-) I am still a sparse shooter, too many years with sheet and 120 film I think, so do not have to choose from 720 in a week ;-) john ________________________________________ And the 15 Zeiss was the tipping $ point that was not made by Cosina, putting it out of my reach. I do have the 15 VC but virtually never use it. I regret not doing a PAW, and admire those doing a PAW or PESO. The pressure of doing a PAW made me think photographic thoughts every day. And, pathologically, digital seem to steal some of the magic. Instead of scanning 36 frames, I was editing 720 frames. Sent from my iPad Jeffery L. Smith New Orleans, Louisiana USA On Jul 9, 2012, at 22:24, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > I think the 15mm is the only asph in the ZM range. I suspect that the > Zeiss SLR range will start to get asph lenses as CA is a big issue on the > D800(E) with them. > > john > ________________________________________ > > > I'm willing to throw Zeiss into that as well. I'm not sure that Zeiss uses > as much asph as Leica, or if they just don't mention it in the lens name. > > It is probably a flaw in my standards that I don't care so much about > corner sharpness. If the corner is that important, I should have put it in > the middle instead of the corner. > > Other than my Russian lenses, virtually everything I own is good enough > for me (= better than me). I really don't like anything about zoom lenses > and rarely use them on my dSLR cameras. > > Sent from my iPad > > Jeffery L. Smith > New Orleans, Louisiana > USA > > On Jul 9, 2012, at 21:49, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > >> Ah, I was talking Leica asph ;-) >> >> john >> ________________________________________ >> >> >> The Voigtlander 50/1.5 Nokton was perhaps the first really sharp, >> afforable, asph lens that people hated for its bokeh. The trend in >> thinking seemed to be that reducing aberrations with asph elements >> benefitted everything except bokeh. >> >> I think every lens needs to be assessed on its own merit. I don't have >> any bad Leica lenses, though the old 50/3.5 Elmar performs like a Russian >> copy. Wait, maybe it is.... >> >> The 50/2.5 Hexanon is better. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> Jeffery L. Smith >> New Orleans, Louisiana >> USA >> >> On Jul 9, 2012, at 20:56, John McMaster <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: >> >>> I think that is a widely held misconception.... >>> >>> john >>> ________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> By the way, George, you had some incredibly creamy-bokeh shots posted >>> the other day, and one of them was with an aspherical Leica lens(!). It >>> blew away my bias that aspherical = bad bokeh. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ------------------------------------------------------------ Mail was checked for spam by the Freeware Edition of CleanMail. The Freeware Edition is free for personal and non-commercial use. You can remove this notice by purchasing a full license!