Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/07/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Rei Shinozuka" <shino@panix.com> posted a comparison of the classic and ASPH 35mm Summiluxes: > http://www.shinozuka-family.com/35summiluxen/ This is great, Rei. Thanks for posting it. The only thing better would be an "available darkness" shot taken with both lenses. The pictures show something that I've been wondering about for a while. Is it possible for a lens to be too *good* sometimes? There are certain visual cues that tell us that "this is available light shot." A little flare, a little softness, a bit of "glow," coma in the highlights, sketchy detail in the shadows. I have seen shots with the newer lenses that are so good that I dont realize at first that they were taken in dim light--the only clue is narrow depth of field. It almost seems too good, too easy. Is it a lifetime of seeing all those old classic available light photos? Sour grapes because the ASPH costs so much more? A realization that the "flaws" of older lenses can in the right hands be part of one's pallette--a "look" and a way of seeing? Probably a bit of all of this. Now of course, if someone brought me both lenses and said, "you can have either one for free, but only one," I would pick the ASPH without hesitation. I've also noticed in recent years that non-photographers are less and less accepting of optical "flaws" in available light photography. They're still amazed that we can get the shot without flash, but that amazement quickly gives way to: "But it's not sharp! I could get a better shot with my Caniktax super-twinkie zoom-o-blitz." - --Peter Klein Seattle, WA - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html