Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks Marc Very helpful. Yes I guess speed matters for me and a 90 Summcron will be preferred over an Elmarit or a Tele-Elmarit. If it wouldn't matter, the affordable and sharp CV Apo-Lanthar would largely be enough. But I have f1.2, 1.4 lenses because I use their speed frequently. I don't see any other reason to carry heavier and clumsier lenses around except their speed feature... :-) For instance I just came home from a night walk, every shot was at 1.4 (lux 35). Weight and compactness is a reason to prefer rf over slr for me, but when it comes to a decision, I prefer the faster lens because it's more versatile for different light situations. And mucho Bokeh is also wishable. Haven't decided for which Summicron 90 version, yet. Tending to the pre-AA version with collapsible hood and E55. If a 85mm, then preferably Canon or a Nikon, because I'm a bit burned with Jupiters for the moment (just sent a J-3 back to the seller, was completely out of focus). The Canon 100/2 might be an alternative, too, but is 2cm longer than the pre-AA Summicron, and somehow tricky because the focal length on M6 or RD-1. Didier >I have owned and used both the f/2.8 and f/2 90mm ASPH lenses. In fact, my >f/2.8 lens was bought used from Erwin: it was the one he tested for his >lens book. I later sold that and upgraded to the 2/90 Asph which I got >from a prominenent member of the LUG. I used both extensively. > >The 2.8/90 is every bit as good as the 2/90 from f/4 up and is almost >indistinguishable at f/2.8 unless you are doing some REALLY world-class, >big-time, bad-ass cropping of minute parts of a negative. Otherwise, the >lenses are of similar and excellent performance though the Summicron is >substantially heavier. > >But then you have to factor in the Hicks Conundrum. Roger Hicks, a noted >British professional photographer used to rave about his 1.4/35 pre-Asph >Summilux (he also raved about Soviet lenses, showing that he was a man of >discerning taste and of a sound optical mind). One acquaintance once >confronted him on his love of the Summilux and pointed out that any version >of the 35mm Summicron had noticeably better performance at f/2.8 and f/4 >and f/5.6. So, queried the querent, why stick with the 1.4/35? Responded >Roger: I concede that the Summicron is generally more satisfactory in >performance from f/2.8 to f/5.6. But it does a much better job at f/1.4! > >In other words, if you NEED an f/2 lens, get the Summicron. If you >sometimes will need an f/2 lens, get the Summicron. If you can safely say >that you will never need to shoot a 90mm lens wide-open at f/2, then save >your shoulders and get the f/2.8 lens. (A possible workaround is to pick >up a SPS 2/85 Jupiter-9 as an emergency lens, and the Jupiter is relatively >light.) > >Jerry Lehrer used to lecture Henry Ford, back in the Longago, when Henry >was trying to figure out whether to replace the Model T with the Model A, >"Henry, when in doubt, bore it out!" In a similar vein, many of you >subscribe to Capa's suggestion that there has never been a lens which is >excessively wide-angle. I do not hold to that as I am not especially fond >of lenses much wider than 50mm on miniature-format or 80mm on MF, but my >own mantra is to ALWAYS go for the fastest lens reasonably available. > >(Just by way of example, my basic Leica bag consists of: M6 with non-Asph >1.4/50, 4.5/21 Zeiss Biogon, 1.4/35 Summilux ASPH, 2/90 Summicron ASPH, and >a 2.4/135 AA Telyt. I also have a Vivitar 283, a couple of packs of spare >batteries, six or eight or more rolls of film. I finally quit including >the Leica M motor drive (the old one) as I just never use it. My >Hasselblad bag is similarly laden: a 2000FCM body with a 2.8/80 Planar T*, >a 4/50 Distagon, a 5.6/120 S-Planar, and a 2.8/18cm CZJ Sonnar. My >Rolleiflex bag is a LOT smaller and lighter, as this only includes my 2.8GX >and some filters and the three Rolleinar close-up units; unless I see a >specific need, I leave my Weitwinkel- and Tele-Mutars behind. The trick is >to plan to park closeby to the scene you are shooting; I rethink this if I >have to hike in and would probably opt for some LTM gear or a Retina IIIc >or my Werra 3 in that event.) > >Again, there is no real difference in optical performance between the f/2 >and f/2.8 ASPH lenses, so the determinant probably should be based on the >need for f/2, the weight, and the price. > >Marc > > >msmall@aya.yale.edu >Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir! > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information