Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]My experience also. (But I've always thought that short teles were easier to make well than 50 or anything wider). I think, as you suggest, that the allure of the 35 is largely due to its being much more forgiving than the 50 and 90. When in focus and used at appropriate shutter speeds, the 50 images are very hard to beat. Of course the more forgiving lens usually produces the best pictures in harsh environments. The many compromises of my first generation 35 'cron are light loss and major loss of resolution away from the center of the frame. These problems are annoying in landscapes, but much less important in fast moving situations when the subject is centered, the background unimportant, and I don't have time to frame and focus a longer lens. Maybe if I had a 35 ASPH I'd try more landscapes... Mark Rabiner wrote: > I've always felt the 50 Summicron was the lens to beat. > Much less easy to use than the 35 which i can shoot at a 30th of a second and > get much DOF. > The 50 Summicron i need at a least a 60th and I'm not real happy until I'm at > 125th and i have to be much more careful about what I'm getting in focus. > I think the 50's are the easiest lenes to make for the 35mm format and > generally > the best.