Some thoughts on M3 and lenses

[Alan Bearden <healey@garnet.berkeley.edu>]

A couple of comments regarding M3s and M-lenses:

I have never seen the use of a wider-aperture lens provide a sharper or better-
corrected image when stopped down than another lens of the same focal length
used
at its full (but smaller) aperture. Thus, it seems that the only reasons to use
say a 90mm f:2 rather than the 90mm f:2.8 or f:4 are: you need the light for the
purpose such as using a finer-grain film, or you want to isolate a smaller
depth-
of-focus.  Thus, both the 90mm f:2 Summicron and the 90mm f:2.8 Tele-Elmarit are
sharp at f:2.8; the lesser mass of the later may be a controlling influence
when back-packing, etc.  Similar thoughts for other focal lengths (50mm, 35mm).

Another thought:  The M3 rangefinder is almost 1:1 (0.91X) allowing both eyes
to be open without eye strain; this is important in sports or other action
photography.
Also, as one gets older (spoken by a 40+ yr. veteran of M3s), accommodation
becomes
more of a problem--more eye strain.  Other cameras in the M-series have smaller
magnifications in the rangefinder window although they have, of course, the 
advantage of allowing the use of other focal lengths (28mm, 75mm, etc.) without
either "bug-eyes" on the lenses (35mm) or auxiliary finders.

Comments?

Alan Bearden