Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > Back when I was shooting Nikon gear I rented a 280 2.8 and shot some > > test chrome films with both the Nikon and Leica lens. the test > > images were of my then wife with our dog. The dog had black fur. On > > the Nikon the fur was black, no detail. On the Leica there was > > detail in the fur. Adding the teleconverter did not degrade the > > image any that I could discern. > > Wow, that IS saying a lot. Many consider the 300/2.8 to be one of the very > best Nikkors (along with the 180/2.8). The venerable 300/2.8 lenses, now a common sight at sports scenes have come a long way since the first Topcon in the sixties, and the first Nikkor in 1972. The current Nikon model, the AF-S 300mm 1:2.8D model, is said to be diffraction limited at wide open, and image degrades thereon. The phenomenon described above can be explained in two ways: Nikon lens had low contrast at fine resolution, rendering the detail unrecorded. Leica lens had a overall veiling flare which brought the level of illumination above the minimum recording capability of the film. (similar effect as preexposure) While Leica lenses are fine (and I have 4 of them), and I am sure this is no exception, but further test would be required to prove its outright superiority. Perhaps a shot with a golden retriever may have shown more subtle differences. At least you weren't photographing your wife with a black cat.