Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Agreed. Now try this: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante/105test.jpg It's a blowup (via SprintScan) to the equivalent of 50" on the long side (so about 35x) of a shot *wide-open* with a 105 Nikkor in LTM on my M3 (I believe the exposure was 1/1000 sec, ND4x, f/2.5), on TMX developed with DIAFINE at 3 min A, 5 min B, 68 degrees. No tripod. The large picture is a part of a 2700dpi scan at one scan pixel to one screen pixel (so 3699 pixels / 72dpi = 51.35"). The small picture is a 72dpi scan of the whole neg. The area the large one was taken from is circled. Neat, huh? Too bad it wasn't Tech Pan. Probably just a manufacturing anomaly that it's so sharp but considering that this is less than 1/4 the price of a 90/2 APO, well... if it were half as good it would still be worth it. My question is why people don't use longer lenses as standard when they can - they just do so much better. Note the good bokeh and "Sonnar glow." Sonnars wide open seem to have a type of halation that makes object edges glow as if the shot were taken on film with extended red sensitivity at dusk... I have observed this with a number of the variants, such as the 50/1.5, 85/2 and 105/2.5. Mark Rabiner wrote: > Dan Cardish wrote: > > > > With all the recent talk of the APO 90, I dug up a test image I made with > > mine when I first bought the thing. The pic is a little washed out, bit it > > demonstrates the potential of the lens. Check out > > http://www.photoartworld.com/90test.jpg > > > > The entire original 35mm frame is visible in the lower right corner of the > > jpg. The boat in the main part of the image is a blown up version of the > > one closest to the viewer in the small frame. > > > > dan c. > > That's sharp as heck! > 100 or 64 slide film? > > mark rabiner > :) > http://spokenword.to/rabiner/