Archived posting to the
Leica Users Group, 2007/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index]
[Home]
[Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re:Uncoated Summar wanted
From: leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams)
Date: Sat Dec 22 10:06:43 2007
References: <df819c3941678622cccf06799a3048e6@teleport.com><380109.30275.qm@web90401.mail.mud.yahoo.com><a2f8f4470712220645j316fa76fiaf79dbefdc3df74e@mail.gmail.com><44669446-48E3-42EF-A4E0-225B067ECFC9@charter.net> <a2f8f4470712221002u3256ae89w1a796bd10def3fed@mail.gmail.com>
My uncoated 1939 Elmar takes much more cleaner images than my uncoated 1936
Summar. Summar's more prone to flare even stopped down.
"Always wear your hood!"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ridings"
Subject: Re: [Leica] Uncoated Summar wanted
> Slobodan,
>
> My guess is the main difference will be the one between 3.5 and 2.0.
> It's the very narrow depth of field that I'm interested in playing
> with.
>
> I'll never say a bad thing about Elmars. Both of my yearbook shots are
> with Elmars :-)
>
> Daniel
In reply to:
Message from mak at teleport.com (Mark Kronquist) ([Leica] Uncoated Summar wanted)
Message from wrs111445 at yahoo.com (Bill Smith) ([Leica] Uncoated Summar wanted)
Message from dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] Uncoated Summar wanted)
Message from s.dimitrov at charter.net (slobodan dimitrov) ([Leica] Uncoated Summar wanted)
Message from dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings) ([Leica] Uncoated Summar wanted)