Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Sorry, Luis; I read incorrectly. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Luis Ripoll" <luisripoll@telefonica.net> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 7:07 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Summilux vs Summicron > Hi Set, > > I never had a Summicron DR, who related the history was Andrew Nemeth, not > me. Anywhere, thanks for your advice. > Luis > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org > [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org]En nombre de > Seth Rosner > Enviado el: jueves, 11 de noviembre de 2004 0:58 > Para: Leica Users Group > Asunto: Re: [Leica] Re: Summilux vs Summicron > > Luis, too bad you weren't using a Dual-range or Rigid 50/2 Summicron. You > would never have sold it. Comfortable contrast and better resolution than > the 50 Summicron you sold. > > Seth LaK 9 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Luis Ripoll" <luisripoll@telefonica.net> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 7:05 PM > Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Summilux vs Summicron > > >> Just a final question Andrew, do you mind that in your opinion you prefer >> E43 than E46? >> >> Best! >> Luis >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org >> [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org]En nombre >> de >> Andrew Nemeth >> Enviado el: martes, 09 de noviembre de 2004 23:10 >> Para: lug@leica-users.org >> Asunto: [Leica] Re: Summilux vs Summicron >> >> >> On 09/11/2004, at 12:31 PM, lug-request@leica-users.org wrote: >> >>> Summilux vs Summicron >> >> >> Hmm, all this traffic and no-one has answered the question :?) >> >> I have owned both the M Summicron and M Summilux (an E43 >> 1989 version). In the end I sold the 'cron because: >> >> o I found it too contrasty and harsh, especially for colour (gasp!) >> work under the Australian sun. It may be great for polluted >> northern >> hemisphere light, but for our part of the globe it's just too >> "forte". >> >> o For hand-held available-light use, the 'lux is every bit as sharp. >> >> o The 'lux has better flare control (an important issue for me as a lot >> of my indoor shots have room lights shining into the lens). >> >> o It has a long focus travel, making precise focus easier. >> >> o Obviously you get an extra stop (although you have to do a luminance >> correction in software to compensate for vignetting when wide open). >> >> o E.Puts hates the E43 version of the 50-lux, another very good reason >> for liking it :?) >> >> FWIW the great bulk of my "Sydney Unposed" project has been shot with >> the >> 50-lux. Have a look in particular at the Bondi beach shots at: >> >> <http://4020.net/unposed/fun.shtml> >> >> Here I shot into the sun and yet the 'lux managed to retain details in >> both >> the shadows & highlights without flaring. >> >> >> Regds, >> >> Andrew Nemeth >> <http://nemeng.com/leica/> >> [ Leica FAQ ] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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