Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/03/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes I would agree Geoff's Summicron would outperform a lens which was designed many decades ago. And I always root for the slower glass. The 75 Summicron f2is a lens I yearn for. The 75 Summilux 1.4 I don't. Its big and old. Or to put it more positively the Summicron is new and compact. Mark William Rabiner > From: Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:36:35 +1000 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Another 75mm-Summilux-on-M8 example > > Absolutely agree with Jeff on all of those points. Naturally I couldn't > resist posting the shot from the ninja Summicron when Mark declared the > Summilux the sharpest 75 ever ;-) > I think that, to continue this discussion, Jeff should bring his Summilux > down under, I'll book the lunch and beers cafe and we'll go along and shoot > side by side. Purely in a quest for knowledge, of course. > > 2009/3/27 Jeff Moore <jbm at jbm.org> > >> 2009-03-24-23:49:49 Mark Rabiner: >>> Is it the sharpest lens in the history of photography? >>> I think so. >> >> Except of course it isn't. Apples to apples (if maybe red apples to >> green apples), with fast shutter speeds and low ISOs to show it off, the >> amazing 75mm Apo-ASPH Summicron at f/2 beats it obviously in contrast, >> fine detail, corner goodness -- whether the Summilux is at f/1.4, f/2, >> f/2.8... or maybe elsewhere. And the Summicron is shorter and lighter: >> all-around handier. I cannnot tell a lie: I own the 75/2, and I use it >> whenever I can, like when I expect for the light to be reasonably >> bright. >> >> But the Summicron doesn't go to 11. I mean f/1.4. So using it, I'd >> have had to try to hand-hold twice as slow a shutter speed. Might not >> have worked. There are also some touchy-feely differences in the way >> the lenses render stuff. But basically... f/1.4 is darned handy when >> there isn't enough light. Because the next ISO up is really raggedy >> looking, and the next shutter speed down (1/45) would've been pretty >> wobbly for a 75. Even 1/90 can be hit-or-miss. >> >>> I'm looking at eye lashes; >>> Individual ones, you can count them. >>> And the split ends at the ends of them >>> >>> Indoors wide open hand held. >> >> I'm glad you see my point, Mark. I know you're a big fan of compact, >> light, slow, super-duper-sharp lenses, which make sense for someone like >> you who apparently goes outside a lot. For much of the day, there's a >> really bright light turned on out there; f/4 is practical. So you often >> make fun of the large, heavy Summiluxen they've been introducing. But I >> seem to find myself making about 80% of my pictures in rooms at night, >> and an excellent fast lens makes me really happy. >> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbm0/3358536031/sizes/o/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > > -- > Cheers > Geoff > 'Life's too short for mediocre glass' > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/a/ > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information