Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: Re: [Leica] Voightlander lenses
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:41:19 -0700
References: <5609812.1058896903548.JavaMail.nobody@rowlf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> <5.2.1.1.2.20030722164231.0ac7deb8@192.168.100.11>

Richard F. Man asked:

> Ted, does it really give you 1.2? Dante conjectures that due to the high
> number of internal surfaces, the light transmission may be less than it
> claims? Also, how does it compare to the Summilux ASPH? (at 1.4 and above
:-)<

Hi Richard,
I never thought it was anything else but f.1.2 and never fiddled with a
meter to check it out to be anything else but f 1.2.  I put it on the M7 and
started shooting away. You know KISS ;-) Story of my life. :-)

>>>Also, how does it compare to the Summilux ASPH? (at 1.4 and above :-)<

Sorry I can't be of any help as I don't test things like that, as I'm
usually too busy shooting. However, having had lots of Sandy Carter's ASPH
35 1.4 negs and prints around here I'd say the C/V f1.2 35mm, mine anyway,
has cut negs as good as her ASPH 35 1.4.  Now that's an eyeball comparison
and not the least bit technical, but damn mine sure look pretty good.
ted



- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from mak@teleport.com (Re: Re: [Leica] Voightlander lenses)
Message from "Richard F. Man" <richard@imagecraft.com> (Re: Re: [Leica] Voightlander lenses)