Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/13/05 9:12 AM, "Douglas Sharp" <douglas.sharp@gmx.de> typed: > Mark and Phil, > I've been using both lenses and some others for the past 10 days, about > 1100 > macro and normal shots so far, and the Leica just isn't up to the quality > of > the > Yashica for what I'm doing.The other Leica lenses used for larger flower > shots, > Summicron 2/35 Summicron 2/50, 28mm have all been spot on, as have a Zeiss > 1,7/50 and a Pentax 2,5/135mm.I don't think I have a "focus blindness" on > this > one particular lens, particularly considering the fact that it has mostly > been > used at f16 or f22. Focussed wide open and then stopped down to the working > aperture. Even with a viewfinder magnifier the results probably wouldn't be > any > better. I think the flower pictures prove the point. If not, the focus > chart > shots may. > And to be quite honest about it, I'll stick with the lens that's producing > the > best results. > cheers > Douglas > > Great Doug but what doe "Spot on" mean your getting them in focus? ;-) (obnoxious smiley face) Maybe your groundglass likes one lens more. Leica nut that I am I'm not really feeling all that threatened by some very old Leica macro optic not measuring up to a modern lens. Even if that modern lens has the overwhelmingly uninspiring name of "Yashica". The main advantage for the Yashica system was that it had maybe ok sometimes maybe better than ok optics but you could put Zeiss made in Japan stuff on it which really was pretty good. Certainly something to give Nikon/Canon a run for their money. One or two Zeiss made in Germany as well I think. Macro photography when people get into it they realize that it's a little hard to do casually If they are hoping to match the results they've seen in magazines or books. Its a lot more difficult than it looks. You need to stop way down and use an ultra fast shutter speed at the same time. It would help if the earth was a little closer the the sun. and the sun was not a hot light. There's plenty ways to go wrong in a macro shot. And always another way lurking around the corner. You've shown us in that last test pitfalls of figuring out if you've really hit your focus or not. Comparing an out of focus area of one image against an in focus area of another image and making a qualification. So when you tell me some middle of the road optic made to a fraction of the higher tolerances of anything Leica ever made is better than a solid (though older) Leica be I'm not inclined to automatically believe that without visual proof. But I've gotten to the point where I just don't believe TALK about lenses. As I'm getting to feel that TALKING about lenses its like dancing about architecture. The pictures should be out on the table. And speaking for themselves. As you just did with your test. which we were able to qualify accordion-ly. If there was some scratching in the brass in that shot we could be looking out it might make a better going on viable lens test. All it think we're testing here which such smooth surfaces and lack of detail is contrast and contrast and be arrived at in plenty of different ways. Especially when we get in the digital realm. Or testing if the focus of your optics is matching your focus on your groundglass. Lucky is was a round (like the Earth) not flat subject. If it was newspapers on the wall we could have easily been comparing an in focus image with an out of focus image, sold all our Leicas, and never known the difference. I'm sure this happens all the time. Contrast can be arrived at in plenty of different ways. Making you think a lens has more or less contrast than it really has. Maybe contrast is being compensated for and you don't even know it. Often tests end up being in effect a test of unsharp masking and not much else. Not on your last one perhaps. And contrast can later compensated for so you wonder if it's a little beside the point. Like color saturation. By the way you were locking the mirror up? Shooting flowers is not a great way to find out if you have a cutting edge macro lens or not - for the making of fast generalizing of one lens over another. Flowers are soft and mushy unless someone's been out spray painting the roses red with a high rez bar code stencil. And they move in the breeze. Even when you don't see them do it. And are real hard to get all in focus in a real close-up. You get the pestle. But not much mortar. Lots of Twinkie-light hating people when they get into macro end up taking the Twinkie defense. As they, with most serious macro photography are much more an intricate part of the ballgame than even the photojournalists who you see always with their flashes on camera even at high noon at the salt flats; especially then. With the flash making you able to shoot at f22 or 16 with an effective shutter speed because of flash duration of 1/200,000 of a second you are going to obtain some sharpness in a macro shot somewhere. Often though not where you thought you'd like it. Its so easy to mis your focus Even at f22. Ironically it can make using a tripod not really crucial. Things are moving in the breeze anyway. They help you bracket your focus that way. Your you blast away with your motor drive. Mirror lock up would not be necessary if you were using flash. The prevalent technique of macro photography with a flash on a 3 foot coiled usually TTL cord makes for shots which you'd never think were flash shots in a million years. And with no fancier technique than this. No bounce. No cards. No mini soft boxes. As in the bulk of the quality macro shots out there in our collective unconscious.... That's how they're shot. It's not real obvious why macro flash does not look like macro flash but passes easily for natural light. I think it's somehow the out of context ness of it. A rose by any other light source. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon http://rabinergroup.com/