Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/03/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: "B D Colen" <bdcolen@MIT.EDU> >What that > translates to in English is that the lens is flare prone. I responded to your statement that glow = flare. Not true. And that glow = distortion. Not true. And that glow = softness. Not true. The Leica look, perhaps a better word than glow, is there in images that are flare-free, distortion-free and sharp. That was my point. > And to say that distortion is "virtually imperceptible" means that it is > perceptible - with the naked eye. Your meaning, B.D. What I meant was that its distortion is measurable scientifically and not with the naked eye. But my purpose was to point out that distortion has nothing whatever to do with "glow" > And saying that I am on the warpath against Leica because I am criticizing > lenses manufactured 50 years ago ............ B.D., do you really want regular readers of this list to believe that this is your only criticism of Leica? Keep smiling! ;-) Seth