Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/05/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]All of that makes sense. Thanks B.D. I was a bit reluctant to go to f/4 for fear of painting myself into a corner. Jeffery Smith New Orleans, LA http://www.400tx.com -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:55 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] 75-90mm lenses - Opinions I'd suggest that the reason the 90 is least used is that it is the length least suited - other than 135 - to rangefinder photography. A 90 on a rangefinder is a bit like roller skates on an elephant - they may get the elephant where it's trying to go, but there are better ways to get there. ;-) The 75 1.4 is a truly outstanding piece of glass, producing gorgeous images, and proving non-existent depth of field, which is great when you want to isolate a subject. However, 75 is a focal length that is neither fish nor fowl - it gets you a few steps closer to the subject than a 50, but it doesn't provide the reach of the 90. So if you really want a rangefinder lens longer than 50, I'd say go for a 90, and if you're going to go for a 90, go for the 90 f2 asph. Don't go for the 2.8 or 4 - give yourself the faster glass, which allows for better control over depth of field. On 5/8/06 8:47 PM, "Jeffery Smith" <jsmith342@cox.net> wrote: > I have every conceivable possible lens between 15mm and 50mm (with a > lot of weight skewed toward the 50mm end). However, I have only two > lenses past 50...a 90/2.8 Hexanon (which is "very good") and a 75/2.5 > Heliar (which is "very good"). I would like to have something > excellent longer than 50. It's a length I don't use enough. Since > Zeiss Ikon apparently stopped dead in their tracks at 50, I pretty > much have the following choices in Leica glass: > > 75/1.4 > 90/4 > 90/2.8 > 90/2 > > Of course, the faster the glass, the more expensive it is. I doubt > that I will be shooting smoky, dimly-lit pubs with this. So speed is > not that much of an object. Does one of these stand out among the > others? If the fast glass is the glass with hair-raising quality, I > will consider [choke!] the cost as secondary. > > BTW, 90mm seems to be the length LEAST used by LUGers, at least in PAW > postings. It isn't THAT long...... > > Jeffery Smith > New Orleans, LA > http://www.400tx.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information