Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/07/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Detlef Beyer wrote: > I don't see apples and oranges here. Youre telling me that the difference > in quality between a Leica and a "normal" camera is relevant for taking a > good image. But what I tried to say: it's for 99% the photographer and > maybe you get an additional 1% with a Leica lens... But this 1% is what you > are talking about and for this 1% you pay double the price. That's not > apple and orange - thats what it's all about. It's like the very popular > 1/8000th shutter speed - you need it once in your live - if ever. The difference between the optical quality of the typical Leica lens and the typical 35mm lens is far greater than 1%. In some cases (35 1.4 ASPH, 90 2.8 Elmarit, 100 2.8 Apo Elmarit, 180 2.0 Apo Summicron, 70-180 Apo, to name just a few), where Leica lenses are "best in class," the differences can be marked. To suggest otherwise simply indicates a lack of research. This isn't to say the best performing lenses, in incapable hands, won't produce junk. The photographer remains the greatest variable in the chain. Lugnuts generally wish to eliminate lens quality to the degree possible in that chain, which places greater responsibility on the photographer. Hence, the challenge to us to perform. If you can't blame the equipment, than you can only blame (or reward) yourself. Cheers, David W. Almy Annapolis, Maryland