Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/08/31

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:54:30 -0400

Thanks, Dante - I guess when one's sense of self-worth depends upon the
brand of equipment one ones, one must feel pretty foolish discovering that a
$450 Japanese lens is every bit as good as that high-priced equipment. By
the way, that's not my assessment - it's the assessment of the much admired
Erwin Puts, who I believe acknowledged that the Nokton is a bit sharper, and
contrastier, than the Summilux at maximum aperture, although clearly the
Summilux is a better constructed lens - as well it should be at about four
times the price. And, I would also note, to be fair, that there are those
who do not like the Nokton's bokah. I believe that Johnny Deadman got rid of
his for that very reason.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Dante
Stella
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:01 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake



Fred,

You can see a shot from that very lens at

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nokton.html

The Nokton is a very capable optic, by some accounts better than the
current Summilux wide-open.  The Nikkor, the other contestant, beat the
hell out of the Summarit.  It took Leica 10 years to surpass it.

As to the balance of your comments (I guess they are directed at BD but
are also a slight at Peter), I would suggest that you mind your manners.

Regards
Dante

On Friday, August 30, 2002, at 11:58 PM, Fred Sears wrote:

>
> $498? For that lens?
>
> Must be a typo for $4.98.
>
> Or .05 cents.
>
> Not a surprise that the photos seemed so poorly focused and improperly
> exposed.
>
> Absolutely incredible that these were even posted and then to have the
> photographer brag that the glass was good for the money??
>
> I think a Coke Classic bottle used as a lens could make better
> pictures...(the original Coke Classic of course!).
>
> Hey, if you can't swing the Leica glass why berate those who can?
>
> Personally, I'd love to own a C4 but I can't swing it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Jeffery Smith <JLS@runbox.com> (RE: [Leica] Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake)
Reply from Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch> ([Leica] Re: Nokton (WAS: Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake))