Re: [Leica] it DOESN'T work well for leica!

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

Dan,

>>I consider the 90/2 AA one of the best lenses I own.  Yet, I used it last
week to photograph a friend, and many of the pictures are out of focus or
just plain blurry.<<

This is one of the biggest problems I face when using a 90 at max
apertures. The problem tends to manifest itself more using a rangefinder. I
just don't have the same problem using a 90/2 on my R7. I think it has to
do with the ttl viewing.

It's as though it's easier to both focus and compose at the same time in an
SLR. With an M you focus and then frame. By the time I frame the subject
has moved, or I have. It doesn't take much. And you don't notice since
you're attentive to framing, and not the rangefinder. So even though you
can focus more accurately with a rangefinder, it isn't neccessarily easier.

IMHO, using a 90/2, 75/1.4, 50/1.0 and even a 90/2.8 wide open in close
takes a great deal of practice. It's almost the antithesis of AF. (And
while to an outsider it might sound like AF is the answer, it comes with
its own set of logistical flaws).

I'm always a bit skeptical when people say that a 90 (or 135) isn't sharp.
I tested my older 90/2 on a tripod, and compared to other lenses (my Nikkor
85/1.8, for one) the 90/2 was world class. I guess that makes the 90/2.8
Elmarit solar system class, and the 90/2 AA galaxy class.

Lenses like that really put us to the test. Failures are frustrating, but
the successes are oh so sweet. Nothing draws me into a portait quite as
much as a brilliant set of eyes in perfect focus, and all other features
just a bit out of focus. It takes a fast lens and lots of practice
accomplish that on a regular basis. Personally, I tend to rely on luck far
too often. :-)

Dave