Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/02/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Perar 28 looks good to me!
From: richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man)
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 01:15:58 -0800
References: <CAF8hL-E=AEW1C7Ym_1drADQNkWNjJRX3Xwns-BCRd_2Dwe2LdA@mail.gmail.com> <4F49EECC.1030601@whitedogs.co.uk> <CAF8hL-Hys-FuSxcP8s6JWmOxV6FQRigwS4nvAZf2NhfrwJzSXA@mail.gmail.com> <20120226035459.06a9653d@linux-pfy5.site>

I'm pretty sure an ex-LUGger (and a damned fine photographer) used to do
that and posted photos from his E-1 and 4/3 lens and claimed it's the
Noctilux or something and no one questioned him :-)

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Phil Forrest
<photo.forrest at earthlink.net>wrote:

> You could have told a little white lie and said it was taken with a 28
> Elmarit and nothing bad about the image capability of the Perar would
> have been said...
> Kind of placebo affect.
>
> Phil Forrest
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 00:44:13 -0800
> Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I usually don't mention the gears used per se. on my photos,
> > so now that I am reasonably happy with the image quality, it probably
> > won't get mentioned much :-)
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Mark Pope <mark at whitedogs.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Richard,
> > > I think the shots look pretty good.  I think we can all be a little
> > > too critical at times.  An interesting experiment to try would be
> > > to post some more pictures in a little while and not mention the
> > > lenses used...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Pope,
> > > Swindon, Wilts
> > > UK
> > >
> > > Homepage               http://www.monomagic.co.uk
> > > Blog
> > > http://www.monomagic.co.uk/**blog<http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog>
> > > Picture a week (2012)  http://www.monomagic.co.uk/**
> > > index.php?gallery=paw/2012<
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2012>
> > > Picture a week (2010)  http://www.monomagic.co.uk/**
> > > index.php?gallery=paw/2010<
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2010>
> > > Picture a week (2009)  http://www.monomagic.co.uk/**
> > > index.php?gallery=paw/2009<
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2009>
> > > (2008) http://www.monomagic.co.uk/**
> > > index.php?gallery=paw/2008<
> http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2008>
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26/02/2012 04:53, Richard Man wrote:
> > >
> > >> Took the Perar 28 for a bike ride to downtown. Totally disgusted
> > >> at Larry Page new mansion - a 3 story thing that will dwarf even
> > >> the big houses around it.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, back to the Perar 28. Mark is right in the sense that the
> > >> out of focus area, particularly close to the corners, the OoF
> > >> image just sort of have a shear look to them. I am sure there's a
> > >> technical term for this type
> > >> of aberration. This is a bit unusual lens for me as I mostly have
> > >> late versions of sharp lens, e.g. 50 'lux ASPH, 35 'lux ASPH, 85/2
> > >> Sonnar, 25 ZM
> > >> etc. and of course the XPan lens are also without peer.
> > >>
> > >> So the question is, does the rest of the image quality and the size
> > >> advantage compensates for this flaw? You be the judge:
> > >>
> > >> http://richardmanphoto.com/**PICS/Perar28/<
> http://richardmanphoto.com/PICS/Perar28/>
> > >>
> > >> Still not a whole lot of processing, but I did fix some vignetting
> > >> using LR. One thing about the Perar is that it is quite sharp at
> > >> the focused area. Looking at these images, I am quite happy with
> > >> them. The lens is tiny
> > >> and is a joy to use. It's not for everybody but it works for me.
> > >> If I am going out explicitly for shooting, then a better lens will
> > >> be warranted but
> > >> for the "always have a camera with you" situation, it works quite
> > >> well enough. If you use it on one of the mirrorless cameras with
> > >> smaller sensor,
> > >> then even the corner performance is not going to be an issue.
> > >>
> > >> The Perar 35 does not have this issue and I think is optically
> > >> superior. However, the handling is not as nice as the Perar 28.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > ______________________________**_________________
> > > Leica Users Group.
> > > See
> > > http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<
> http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for
> > > more information
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> philforrest.wordpress.com
> gallery.leica-users.org/v/philforrest
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
// richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>


In reply to: Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Perar 28 looks good to me!)
Message from mark at whitedogs.co.uk (Mark Pope) ([Leica] Perar 28 looks good to me!)
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Perar 28 looks good to me!)
Message from photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Phil Forrest) ([Leica] Perar 28 looks good to me!)