RE: [Leica] LTM lenses

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Mike - I am neither an equipment snob, nor do I even understand much of
anything much about the technical side of optics. But take my word for it -
you can SEE the difference between images made with such modern optics as
the ASPHs and their LTM progenitors. And, if you do much shooting with your
lenses at or near maximum aperature, the rediculous investment is well worth
it.

This doesn't mean that the old lenses don't produce pleasing results: they
do. It also doesn't mean that there weren't iconic images produced with
those lenses: there were. But if you need a 35 you can use day in and day
out, under lousy lighting conditions at f 1.4, you WANT the Summilux ASPH,
not the old Summilux. If you need a 90 you can shave with at f2, you WANT
the new 90, not the old Summicron - which was and still is a damn nice lens.

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Mike
> Spadafora
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 7:30 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: [Leica] LTM lenses
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>         I am just wondering if I would notice an immediate difference
> betwwen picture quality if I was going to compare the older
> ltm lense to
> the newer (not aspheric) lenses? I am sure if one did lens tests for
> lines per millimeter, etc the new lenses would probably be
> better, but I
> am talking just looking at the photos. I am going to be able to say oh
> yeah that was taken with a newer lens, and that was taken
> with an older
> lens? I am sure(I do not mean to offend anyone) that certain
> people who
> have invested a lot of money in newer equipment will swear by it but I
> wonder?
>
>
> Just wondering
>
> Mike
>
>