Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 04:12 PM 7/28/98 +0200, Alan Ball wrote: >> >From personal experience, this is not an accurate assessment, unless the >> definition of quality photography is based solely on sharpness. I find >> Leica lenses have a lot more going for them than just sharpness. > >Yes, yes, yes, I agree with you: M lenses are small and fast, or a >little larger and extremely fast. And M and R lenses are extremely well >built and a joy to use. We all agree they are way better than what is I'm not talking about build, and smoothness of focus and ruggedness (once it's put together right). I'm talking about optical characteristics. Freedom from flare, tonal modulation, color "bias." Contrast. Color differentiation. Lack of chromatic aberration and a horde of other aberrations (to varying degrees, of course). The overall optical effect of the lenses alone justifies their use. The rest that you mention, are whipped cream on the rhubarb pie. I use a tripod and 100 ISO film many times. I use slow chrome film for personal use, and for commercial freelance jobs. What's more, I own TWO tripods. :-) I use Broncolor lights when I need location lighting. And Leica lenses deliver the extra quality when I need it in terms of sharpness. But my contention is optically, they have a lot more to offer. - -- Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch I used to have a handle on life, then it broke