Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]True...but I think we think of it as pretty rather than as simply the result of inferior glass because some of the world's great photographers took many an iconic image with it because it was all that was available from the likes of Leica. Note that we don't talk about the Kodak glow, or the Bessa glow...But Leica lenses from the early years were not great shakes... Glow, shmoh - No one of you would accept those results from a Nikon or Canon lens if their life depended on it - if someone presented an image and said, oh, look at that Canon glo, we'd say - "Glo? That's fookin' flare!" :-) -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Feli Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:45 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Advice needed on 35mm lens for Leica M On Mar 13, 2005, at 6:48 PM, B. D. Colen wrote: > ROFLOL! :-) > > Glow=flare, distortion,softness Yeah, but sometimes it sure can look pru-etty. ;-) _______________________________________________________ feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 www.elanphotos.com _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information