Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/18
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Erwin Puts wrote: > Some comments on the maximum aperture. We now speak with some disdain > about an f/4 aperture. Do we remember that from 1925 till 1960 the > workhorse lens was the Elmar 3.5/50? And that with film sensibility > around 10 to 50 ASA. Many HCB pictures are made with apertures around > 5.6. In the past, people wrote on clay tablets, which was advanced in the day. But I'll take paper, if I'm given the freedom. Oh, and ballpoints, thank God for ballpoints. > In my view the demand for f/2 lenses and wider, even in the classical > M picture environment is a bit exaggerated. I like to see detail in my pictures. Very old lenses and old emulsions won't give me what I'm looking for. I need the slowest (modern) film possible in a given light. Fast lenses provide the only possible solution. > Of course there are situations where a 1.4 and a filmspeed of 1600 > will save the day. But in many situations an f/4 will do very fine. > Optically the Tri-Elmar is equal to the current 28, 35 and 50 lenses > at relevant apertures.A few years ago Canon did a very extensive > study on the use of apertures and examined thousands of pictures. > Result? Apertures wider than 2.8 are very scarce in practical use. > There is hardly any professional zoomlens with an aperture wider than > 2.8. That fills the need of many users. That's what many users have to settle for. The limiting factor is *price*, not what people will use if they could get it affordably. Bernard