[Leica] Sharp lenses, who cares?

[leicachris at worldnet.att.net (Christopher Williams)]

Daniel,

I tried the 24-85 AF-S also. Found out easily you get what you pay for.
Crap. One of the worst Nikon zooms, next to the 24-120. Looked terrible with
the F100, okay with the D100 only due to Nikon Capture sharpening. But the
prime Nikon lenses like the 35-70/2.8, 17-35/2.8, and 28-70/2.8 are fine
performers. Favorite Nikon lens is the 85/1.8.

Take my '70s 35 & 50 Summicrons any day over other lenses. I'll just have to
move forward, move backwards for zooming.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Ridings" Subject: [Leica] Sharp lenses, who cares?


> I bought a zoom with my Leica D100 and it was reputed to be sharp: 24-85
> AF-S. On the D100 it seemed to be. I had no real complaints and didn't
> notice any difference that mattered when I'd put on a fixed focal length
> lens, something I did out of a gut feeling that they must be better.
>
> I didn't have a film camera that could use the lens so I never used it on
> anything other than digital. Last week I picked up a bargain F90X (I'll
> get to Leica content, don't worry). With one exception, when it comes to
> shooting modes (I can't use aperature priority since you can't set the
> aperature by a control dial and the 24-85 AF-S doesn't have a ring) it
> works just fine. So I thought I'd run a few rolls through and see how it
> holds up.
>
> Mush. At f8 it's just mush. Maybe that's sharp by some peoples standards,
> but compared to the fixed focal length Nikkors and Leica lenses the
> particular sample I have is not much to write home about (but I'm doing
> it, huh?).
>
> Now we have a situation where a so-so lens for film is just fine on
> digital. Nikon's software and for all I know, hardward, takes care of what
> I would call deficiencies when it comes to film. It's mush on film but
> gives me results I'm happy about on digital.
>
> So ... Leica has a reputation for good glass, a well deserved reputation.
> It's their special angle in the film world. When the industry is going
> digital, what will their trademark angle be? Their technical advances in
> engineering? Their innovative software? Their good glass?
>
> Who is going to care about the good glass when the quality comes from a
> combination of strengths where Leica only has the corner, or shared
> corner, on one of the strengths? Good glass isn't even a top priority, as
> far as I can understand, when it comes to quality pictures with a digital
> camera. None of the biggies make crappy glass and the rest can be lifted
> up by other means. What will be the equivalent of that "Leica glow"?
>
> My guess? Nothing.
>
> This coming from a PAW:er who with almost 100% consistency only posts
> analogue shots ... and in the vast majority of cases done with Leica M:s.
> So I'm not inherently antagonistic to film or Leicas. I love them both and
> I love digital. I just don't pester you guys with it.
>
> Daniel