[Leica] Digital "crop factor"

[bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)]

The last point is certainly true, and it is also true that in that 21-35
range there are phenomenal Leica lenses. I would suggest, however, that
certainly the Canon 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are competitive in the wide range,
and the Nikon 35 1.4 manual is pretty damn good. One think that I think
has happened, and I don't claim any expertise when it comes to optics,
is that other manufacturers seem to be catching up with Leica. I know
that when I first got my 21 ASPH I was blow away by it - and still am.
Certainly the Nikon 21, though good, wasn't as distortion free, and God
knows the 17-35 zoom, as truly excellent as it is, can't compete at 21
with the Nikon asph. However, I was truly shocked to see that the 11-22
2.8/3.5 zoom for the Olympus E-1 is definitely competitive at 11 mm (22
35 equiv) with the 21 asph. (I know, I know, they gave me the lens.
Believe me or don't - but keep in mind that I have been more than
willing to provide both positive and negative assessments about the
equipment). In fact, it is so competitive in terms of image quality and
lack of distortion, that the only reason I have not yet offered up my 21
ASPH for sale is that I'm not yet sure whether I'll be going for a
digital m mount camera. And obviously if I do buy one, I'll want that
21.



-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Peter Klein
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 7:36 PM
To: lug@leica-users.org
Subject: RE: [Leica] Digital "crop factor"


B. D.:  At the truly "sweet-spot" medium apertures," I agree that most
of 
us don't make use of the full capabilities of our Leica optics.  That 
belongs to the Tripod, Kodachrome and Velvia crowd.  Or to the inner 
sanctum of Erwin's Optical Bench.

But at full aperture and the next stop or two, I think we get a great 
benefit from using Leica lenses.  Compare a 35/1.4 Asph or a recent 50 
Summicron wide-open with virtually any other lens of similar speed, even
on 
Tri-X at 1/60 second.  The Leica lenses take better pictures, on the 
whole.  At 85-105mm, the very best SLR lenses are pretty competitive.
But 
for fast normals and wides, Leica rules.  Especially since we can carry
the 
Leica lenses without damage to our wrists or abdominal walls. . .   :-)

--Peter

B. D. wrote:
>I understand what you're saying, Luis. But the irony is that virtually 
>none of us can begin to take advantage of the capabilities of our Leica

>optics, particularly if they're the latest generation of lenses, and if

>we're  shooting hand-held, which is what our Leicas were designed for. 
>The reality is that other manufacturers make lenses that will get us 
>images that are just as good as the images our Leica lenses will get 
>us. We make like the particular fingerprint of a given Leica lens, 
>rather than that of another manufacturer's lens, but that's a matter 
>more of taste than optics.


_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information