[Leica] Magic 3D effect (was:Building a Leica system)

[Doug Herr <71247.3542@compuserve.com>]

On Thu, 26 Nov 1998, Sattha wrote:

<SNIP>
> I have seen slides shot with the 50 Summicron that have an unusual 3-D
quality
> to it which I have not been able to get with my Nikkors. Call me mad or
deluded
> but I stand by what I saw.  And the colours and tonal rendition are
simply beautiful.

Sattha,

This was my first reaction to images made with Leica-R lenses.  After 10
years of using Nikkors the difference was breathtaking.  What amazes me is
that some people don't see it.  After using Leica lenses for nearly 20
years I'm still astounded by the 3-D effect, color quality and tonal
gradation.  Yes you are mad but not deluded and you are not alone.  This is
a madness that will haunt you from now on.

>I'd prefer carrying light if possible. Lugging the 80-200/2.8 Nikkor
around
>is enough arm exercise for me. That's another reason why I am opting for
the
>180/3.4 Apo instead of the other two (other than the reputed superior
>performance of the 180/3.4 apo). I am not looking at any macro R lenses
just
>yet because they are simply too expensive, even when bought used. Shooting
>under dim light is a criteria I am looking for in my R system. That is the
>reason why I opted for the Summicrons. Summilux cost too much for an extra
>stop. I chose the 35/2 instead of the 28/2.8  because other than shooting
>formal head and shoulders I also enjoy environmental portraits. To me 35mm
>has a more natural perspective with wide angle especially with humans in
the
>foreground.

I've been using the current version 35mm Summicron-R and I'm completely
satisfied with it.  For me, it has a good balance of low-light capability,
affordability and size & weight (M-folks need not retort!) as well as the
imaging qualities I expect in a Leica lens.  I've not used a 28mm lens but
the 35mm focal length feels comfortable to me.  I've used it by the light
of a gas lantern and by the light of a campfire and I'm delighted with it. 

As for the 180mm lens,  you may want to consider the f/4.0 Elmar which is
smaller, less expensive and has a closer minimum focus distance than the
3.4 APO.  The 3.4 was optimized for use at infinity and its performance
degrades at close distances.  The 135 is a good lens but has close-focus
limitations compared with the 90mm lenses and the 180 Elmar, but at least
it can be used with extension tubes and still provide good images.

Your R-E body is probably what I'd look for if I were to replace one of my
R4sP bodies.  Before taking someone else's suggestions about what 2nd body
to use I'd work with the R-E for a while to see how I use it, and what
features in another body would complement my use of the R-E.

Doug Herr
Sacramento