[Leica] Re:Monster High-tech 50mm 1.4 from Sigma and everyone else

[grduprey at mchsi.com (grduprey@mchsi.com)]

Dave,


Interesting about your 100 Nikon E lens. ?I had one also and it was not even 
close to the performance of my 90 Elmarit R.


Gene



 -------------- Original message from "David Rodgers" 
<drodgers@casefarms.com>: --------------


> Len,
> 
> >>It's surprising how good the old glass is though.<<
> 
> It's fun and easy to compare lenses on a digital body (and with a D700
> all the way out to the corners of designed coverage). I have three
> 50/1.4 Nikkors. The oldest is converted AI with a scalloped focusing
> ring. It's very sharp -- at least as sharp as the 50/1.4 AFD. My hunch
> it that the older lens would be more prone to flare, though I haven't
> tested that. OOF areas look different in all three lenses. The 50 AI is
> currently my favorite. It focuses more smoothly than the 50/1.4 AIS and
> IMO has better bokeh than the 50/1.4 AFD. It also is the best looking of
> the three. Plus I like using Classic lenses. :-)  
> 
> The lens that really surprised me was the 100/2.8E. I can't tell any
> difference between it and the 90/2.8 R that I converted to F mount, and
> it's a little bit shocking. The 100E isn't much bigger than a 50/1.4. I
> never used it much. It felt like a toy and I assumed it performed like
> one. I bought it used for $25 a couple of years ago. I keep doing tests
> comparing the 100E and 90R because my gut says the 100E can't be that
> good. I want it to perform like crap, but it won't!
> 
> Another lens that surprised me is a 24/2.8 AIS Nikkor. Years ago I hand
> picked it from 3 samples I tested (film). I dropped it shortly after I
> bought it. The outer focusing ring bent. (Something similar happened to
> my 35/1.4 ASPH M, but Sherry Krauter magically restored it to like-new).
> I assumed the 24 Nikkor was ruined. I put it in a junk drawer. I
> recently tested it for fun and I can't find any problems, optically.
> Focusing still binds at one point. I'm anxious to compare its
> performance to my 28/2.8 Elmarit R that is currently being repaired. 
> 
> So much has been written over the years about different lenses. I wonder
> just how much is factual. I believe in a few generalities. I believe
> Leica lenses are the standard by with all other lenses should be
> measured. Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. I'm not from
> Missouri, but still, I need to see something before I really believe it.
> 
> 
> Now more pixels just means more peeping, and I think I'm about peeped
> out! OTOH, it's nice to be able to see for myself, without having to
> develop and print (which also introduces more variables). One time I bad
> mouthed a lens. It turns out the lens was fine, but my enlarger was out
> of alignment. When I bought a Zig-align all my lenses improved. I wonder
> if buying a new computer will have similar results. :-)
> 
> BTW, I glued 2 Nikkor rear caps together in order to attach two lenses.
> With a third on the body I can carry 3 lenses easily. The 45P Nikkor and
> 100/2.8 together are lighter than the 90/2.8 R, and they take up about
> the same volume. The auto dust removal features in new digital bodies
> makes swapping lenses more practical. I don't find myself swabbing the
> sensor so often. 
> 
> DaveR     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information