Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]B. D. Colen <bd@bdcolenphoto.com> wrote: > Well, let's just say I've assumed that Tina is the one who's most likely to > know what she shot with - and if she is "guessing," she's shot enough images > so that she's probably right. But of course it's possible that she's wrong. > But why do I suspect that if she was "guessing" that she had shot a > technically perfect image with the same lens, we wouldn't be having this > exchange -her "guess" would then be good enough? ;-) B.D., I've used three versions of the 55mm Micro-Nikkor: my father's compensating, my former f/3.5 PC, and my current f/2.8 AIS, and two samples of the Leica 60 Macro: my E60/Series VIII sample purchased new in 1979, and my daughter's older well-worn sample. No UV filters on any of them. I've compared the Micro-Nikkors with the 60 Macros in a wide variety of lighting conditions. I see a difference in the technical qualities of the pictures. Not in sharpness, but color saturation and flare resistance. In difficult lighting conditions the Nikkors don't do as well. What have you personally compared the Leica 60 macro with? Have you compared it side-by-side in identical lighting conditions with your 55 Micro or your Olympus zoom? Yes it's reasonable to believe that Tina knows what she's talking about, but given the level of uncertainty she expressed and the lack of comparisons with any other lens under controlled conditions it is unreasonable IMHO to reach the conclusion as you did that the Leica 60 macro flares as much as your Olympus zoom. One reasonable conclusion I can make from your assumption and your conclusion is that your anti-R bias continues unabated. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .