Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/01/19

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

Subject: [Leica] Is 35 the Current 50?
From: szoboszlai at gmail.com (Tomas Szoboszlai)
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:42:08 -0500
References: <F012E81E-FFBC-4C47-BA8D-4AC1FC7EC627@archiphoto.com> <CD20A8AC.3D84%mark@rabinergroup.com> <CAF8hL-EWcrQ9spRbYPqBA76bOzCaNLOfOn0JqCMe8nk725U2PQ@mail.gmail.com>

The DXO Optics Pro website has some illustrations.  See the last
example at the bottom here:

http://products.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/features/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis

Eliminating one type of distortion necessarily introduces another and
even Leica gets no exemption from the laws of physics for rectilinear
lenses.

Tom Sz.

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Richard Man
<richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote:
> Mark, and Henning's point is that the less linear distortion a wide angle
> lens has (i.e. the vaunted Super Angulon or the Biogon), the MORE heads
> will turn into oblong (i.e. more apparent distortion of the figure) in the
> edges. It's a physics thing.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> Does my 2 thousand dollar Leica 24 have the same distortion as my 2 
>> hundred
>> dollar Nikon 24? I think its psychological that we think not. The reviews 
>> I
>> remember reading seem to vindicate that along with my prints.
>>
>> it seemed to me I had more distortion with my Nikon 28  than I did with my
>> Leica 24 asph Elmarit. Not sure if you're saying that's suspect or not. 
>> But
>> that was the delusion I was working under  at the time; from 1999 to maybe
>> 2005. I think they put more into a lens the less distortion you get out of
>> it most the times that's what the countless lens reviews seem to be 
>> telling
>> me.
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/13 1:11 PM, "Henning Wulff" <hjwulff at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Mark, the drawing of spherical objects in the corners of wideangle shots
>> > depends almost solely on the level of linear distortion - the more
>> distortion
>> > (within limits) the less spherical objects are turned into oblongs. So
>> if you
>> > have a low distortion lens, like the 21 SEM or even more so the 21/4.5
>> Biogon
>> > or 21/3.4 Super Angulon, heads in the corners don't look very good. A
>> 'poorly'
>> > performing lens with high levels of barrel distortion will do better 
>> > with
>> > heads. Unfortunately, the lenses with severe 'mustache' distortion do
>> worst.
>> >
>> > Henning
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2013-01-19, at 2:27 AM, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> You shoot a crowd of people with a 28 you turn them all into a bunch of
>> >> midgets. Some people don't take to this especially people who are not
>> real
>> >> tall to begin with. . I had a client get irate about that once. I've 
>> >> had
>> >> very few irate clients. But he was right. After that if I used a 28 in 
>> >> a
>> >> crowd I'd not get the people from head to foot only the top half of
>> them.
>> >> Waste up. If your using Leica not Nikon optics the heads at the edges
>> are
>> >> less watermelon like.
>> >>
>> >> On 1/19/13 5:19 AM, "Frank Dernie" <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com> 
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I have read that often over the last couple of decades, but personally
>> I
>> >>> find
>> >>> 28 too wide to be of use unless in -very- crowded situations, which I
>> avoid
>> >>> due to claustrophobia.. I bought one, but it pretty well never gets
>> used.
>> >>> Should sell it I suppose...
>> >>> I find the 50 most useful, and I like the 75-90 range best (by a long
>> way)
>> >>> FD
>> >>> On 19 Jan, 2013, at 02:09, Richard Man <richard at 
>> >>> richardmanphoto.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> For many people, 28mm has been the standard wide for awhile. Just a
>> tad
>> >>>> more than the 35mm, but more useful on the street, without the
>> "immersive"
>> >>>> of 24 or 21.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> Leica Users Group.
>> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mark William Rabiner
>> >> Photography
>> >> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Leica Users Group.
>> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Henning Wulff
>> > henningw at archiphoto.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Leica Users Group.
>> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark William Rabiner
>> Photography
>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
>
>
> --
> // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>


In reply to: Message from hjwulff at gmail.com (Henning Wulff) ([Leica] Is 35 the Current 50?)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Is 35 the Current 50?)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Is 35 the Current 50?)