[Leica] jumping to lens conclusions (leica vs. jupiter)

[Kyle Cassidy <cassidy@netaxs.com>]

dan h. says some very flattering things about my photographs and points
out two in particular:

>I want to comment on two photographs that are astonishingly wonderful
>images:
>
>http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/leicagallery/gallery1/dres
>smaker1.jpg
>
>http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/cassidy/leicaslacker/leicagallery/gallery2/grrl
>z.jpg
>

(though i disagree that they're "astonishingly wonderful" -- they're
not bad) and then goes on to make a good point:

>What's perhaps most remarkable about these two photos is that they AREN'T
>particularly sharp, smooth or (certainly not) grainless.  In terms of
>technical merit, well, they have none (artistic merit, yes, in
>abundance). He probably shot them both with a Jupiter.
>
and proves his point in the making -- one of those shots was indeed taken
with a jupiter 35, however, the _other_ was taken with a 35mm leica
summicron (the f2 version, is that a summicron or a sumiron? or what? who
cares) that a lugger from indiana loaned me last summer. (it actually just
showed up in the mail in a box saying "please use this lens, i haven't
taken a picture with it in a while. send it back in nice condition w/ a
print and i'll be happy." very nice of him.) as for which was shot with
which, there's no way to tell, other than by asking me, even in big
enlargements. they're both somewhat soft but that's handholding in crazy
light -- which is what leica's are all about.

sure, there's probably a difference between the lenses, and if i spent a
lot of time with my eye stuck to a loupe, i might even be able to tell
after a while but that might ruin something for me and i'd have to start
buying more expensive lenses, and that would just piss me off cause it's
money better spent on beer and concert tickets. so i'd rather not know the
difference if there is one, however subtle.

just my particular .02, your mileage may vary.

kc