Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No, I think that is appropriate to this list as well. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 2/24/06, Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@charter.net> wrote: > > ...and I thought I was a stranger in a strange land whose voice cried > out in the godforsaken wilderness...oops...never mind...wrong list. > > Slobodan Dimitrov > Studio G-8, > Angels Gate Cultural Center > http://sdimitrovphoto.com > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Don Dory wrote: > > > Slobodan, > > Well, you are just preaching to the choir on that suggestion. > > Summarits > > have a wonderful look wide open to 2.8, but then so do Summars, and > > the > > early uncoated Elmars. > > > > Don > > don.dory@gmail.com > > > > > > On 2/24/06, Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@charter.net> wrote: > >> > >> On the other hand, a new Elmar-M and a Summarit just might be a > >> killer combination. > >> > >> Slobodan Dimitrov > >> Studio G-8, > >> Angels Gate Cultural Center > >> http://sdimitrovphoto.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Feb 24, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Don Dory wrote: > >> > >>> Steve, > >>> I know that others have chimed in, but the newer version is by far > >>> preferable if you are after cutting sharp images on film. Besides > >>> multicoating which doesn't add much to a triplet, Leica moved the > >>> aperture > >>> ring and vastly improved the performance of this ancient design. > >>> But heck, > >>> used Elmars are pretty cheap so buy a post war one and a current > >>> one. :) > >>> > >>> Don > >>> don.dory@gmail.com > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2/24/06, Steve Barbour <kididdoc@cox.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Is there any optical difference between the old chrome 50/2.8 > >>>> collapsible Elmars of the 1950's to 1974, and the newer 50/2.8 > >>>> Elmars which were issued starting sometime in the 1990's... > >>>> > >>>> Does anyone experienced in using these lenses see any > >>>> differences in > >>>> the photos from them? > >>>> > >>>> Which vintage is preferable if in good shape, and the cost not > >>>> considered? > >>>> > >>>> I appreciate your advice, Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >