What's the "leica look"?
Mike Henley
or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
images, but i can't remember where i read that.
what's that?
Chris Loffredo
It's that look where the entire staff at the 1-hour lab will hold your
3x4 prints in awe, where shots of your dog's rear end will jump off the
light table in three-dimensional glory, where anyone who sees your
pictures will shout "Oh my God! What lens did you use?!?!", where any
snapshot you take will come out looking like Ansel Adams...
; )
Chris
A bit more seriously, images tend to have a very solid look.
And in some cases bokeh and other imaging aspects may be particularly
pleasing.
TP
The "Leica look" refers to shots that appear sharp and contrasty with
no apparent distortion or colour fringing, excellent colour rendition,
detailed micro-contrast and smooth bokeh (a pleasant blurring of out
of focus elements of the shot, especially highlights).
You don't need a Leica lens to achieve this look. Many manufacturers
have at least one lens within their range that will achieve a
comparable look.
However, there are very few manufacturers who have a whole range of
lenses that produce the characteristics listed above. I would suggest
that only the ranges of Carl Zeiss lenses for 35mm SLRs and the Contax
G Series would come close.
Sabineellen
Does "Leica Minox" as marketers like to call Minox now have that look?
Al Denelsbeck
news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com:
1) The look a camera salesperson gets on his face when he spots a
customer too eager to impress people with money;
2) An imaginary quality to an image that is conjured up when the
proud owner of an expensive camera realizes he still doesn't know jack
about photography;
3) The look any sensible person gets on their face when they see a
50mm lens that the manufacturer seriously expects people to pay over a
thousand dollars for - generally a mix between incredulity and sadness or
fear over where Mankind is headed.
Glad to be of help!
- Al.
--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
TP
>>You don't need a Leica lens to achieve this look.
>
>Does "Leica Minox" as marketers like to call Minox now have that look?
Hahaha!!! Don't make me laugh.
I saw you recommended a cheap Minox zoom point and shoot camera in
another thread. That's a bad recommendation, because the limitations
of a zoom p+s camera are much the same almost regardless of brand. At
this price point, it pays not to expect too much, and you should
certainly not expect the "Leica look".
;-)
Michael Scarpitti
> mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in
> news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I recall reading a while ago that leica images have that "leica look",
> > or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
> > images, but i can't remember where i read that.
> >
> > what's that?
>
>
> 1) The look a camera salesperson gets on his face when he spots a
> customer too eager to impress people with money;
Hardly ever happens. Many wealthy people are cheap bastards when it
comes to cameras. Leicas are often bought by people who need to scrimp
and save to get one.
> 2) An imaginary quality to an image that is conjured up when the
> proud owner of an expensive camera realizes he still doesn't know jack
> about photography;
There are just as many, if not more, people who buy cheap cameras and
don't know jack about photography. Investing in an M7 is not a minor
commitment, and those who do often take the time to learn about what
they are doing.
> 3) The look any sensible person gets on their face when they see a
> 50mm lens that the manufacturer seriously expects people to pay over a
> thousand dollars for - generally a mix between incredulity and sadness or
> fear over where Mankind is headed.
If you think anyone can make as good a lens for $200 you're sadly
mistaken.
Michael Scarpitti
If it's some other camera lens, it's not a 'Leica look'.
Gordon Moat
The look on Michael Scarpitti's face when he is typing most of his
responses to news group questions . . . sorry, couldn't resist that one.
;-)
Anyway, the much older Leica lenses of the 1950s through 1970s biased
ultra fine resolution over contrast, sometimes termed micro contrast.
While some of the Japanese companies also produced similar lenses, most
were of a generally higher contrast. With that in mind, and early look
would have been the appearance of more fine details in an image, with
some people claiming that a Leica sources 35 mm image nearly matched
medium format results.
Going into more modern times, there has been more of a bias in more
recent Leica lenses to gain higher contrast, with some users of these
newer lenses lamenting the subjectively too sharp rendition of some
subjects. I find the bias towards everything sharp and in focus a bit of
a shame, and tend to like images produced with the older Leica M lenses,
though I am a little biased towards images with people in them.
Consider also that other companies have decreased some of the contrast
bias, compared to older lens offerings. With a few notable exceptions,
there is more convergence of this supposed look. Picking and choosing
lenses from some other companies can get you lenses that render images
indistinguishable from those made using Leica lenses.
Okay, so a good example of this are some photographers that shoot near
wide open aperture. Quite a few Leica lens choices allow one to achieve a
separation of the subject from the background. With some lenses, this is
a function of the DOF falling off rapidly from the plane of focus. This
can be helped by a very smooth rendition of the defocus (or not in focus)
areas, a characteristic for which many Leica lenses are fairly well
known. This is indeed possible with some lenses from other manufacturers,
and not exclusively a Leica characteristic.
<http://www.allgstudio.com/TheWayBack2003/zoom/97565_3627_01.jpg>
<http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery/portrait/Sabina96.jpg>
Those who have seen these previously might remember which was taken with
a Leica lens. The point is that these just show that supposed "3D"
separation of subject from background. Both of these are substantially
better in printed form, and I caution anyone from judging lens
characteristics based upon JPEGs.
The greatest aspect of using a Leica rangefinder is the ergonomic
quality, and tactile sensation. There is a simplicity that does not get
in the way of certain styles and types of photography. It is definitely
not versatile, like using an SLR, but in the proper realm can reward the
creative with compelling images. As with any camera, put it into the
hands of a hack with no vision, and the results would be uninspiring.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
<http://www.agstudiopro.com> Coming Soon!
Matt Clara
news:2fd2ff8c.04060...@posting.google.com...
So, you can't describe it? Are you sure it's there?
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Mxsmanic
> So, you can't describe it? Are you sure it's there?
The "Leica look" is just a misnomer for the very high image quality one
obtains when using the best camera lenses. Leica makes very good
lenses--and it has no "consumer" line of cheapo lenses--so just about
anything shot with a Leica lens has this quality. However, photographs
taken with other lenses of similar quality from other manufacturers have
the same "look." Shoot with a top-end lens from any major manufacturer
and you'll get that "Leica look" easily enough. Granted, there aren't
too many lenses in the world that match the quality of Leica lenses, but
high-end Nikon and Canon lenses and many Zeiss lenses are in the same
ballpark, for 35mm.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> Anyway, the much older Leica lenses of the 1950s through 1970s biased
> ultra fine resolution over contrast, sometimes termed micro contrast.
Contrast and resolution are the same thing.
> Those who have seen these previously might remember which was taken with
> a Leica lens. The point is that these just show that supposed "3D"
> separation of subject from background.
Leica has no magic when separating subject from background. However ...
Leica lenses typically have superb optical performance even when they
are used wide open, unlike many other lenses that deteriorate rapidly as
the aperture is opened. You don't have to stop a Leica lens down to get
good image quality. And so you can shoot wide open with great image
quality, whereas doing the same with many other lenses causes image
quality to deteriorate very noticeably (they work wide open, but with
only a fraction of the optical performance they achieve when stopped
down).
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat writes:
>
> > Anyway, the much older Leica lenses of the 1950s through 1970s biased
> > ultra fine resolution over contrast, sometimes termed micro contrast.
>
> Contrast and resolution are the same thing.
We already had that discussion. If you are, or any one else is really
interested in that, I suggest going through Google Groups Search, or similar.
I have no interest in discussing this aspect, so if you disagree, then take
it as my opinion, rather than as an absolute.
>
>
> > Those who have seen these previously might remember which was taken with
> > a Leica lens. The point is that these just show that supposed "3D"
> > separation of subject from background.
>
> Leica has no magic when separating subject from background.
Exactly, which is why I included two images made using different lenses.
> However ...
> Leica lenses typically have superb optical performance even when they
> are used wide open, unlike many other lenses that deteriorate rapidly as
> the aperture is opened. You don't have to stop a Leica lens down to get
> good image quality. And so you can shoot wide open with great image
> quality, whereas doing the same with many other lenses causes image
> quality to deteriorate very noticeably (they work wide open, but with
> only a fraction of the optical performance they achieve when stopped
> down).
>
Definitely. It was the wide open performance that first got my attention. Now
I look for that in nearly all the lenses I use. However, not everyone takes
photos that way, or wants to take photos that way. Those people should still
not dismiss Leica gear, since that are other aspects of the cameras and
lenses that compliment many photography situations.
Bryan Olson
> Gordon Moat writes:
>>Anyway, the much older Leica lenses of the 1950s through 1970s biased
>>ultra fine resolution over contrast, sometimes termed micro contrast.
>
> Contrast and resolution are the same thing.
I hope people realize that Mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) doesn't
really care if what he writes is true or not. Gordon is right,
Anthony wrong.
The distinction is particularly interesting for digital
photography. We can easily add contrast in the digital domain;
we cannot increase resolution. A film photographer might desire
the sharpening effect of lenses that maximize contrast. A
digital photographer is better off with all the resolution he
can get.
--
--Bryan
Frank Pittel
: mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in
: news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com:
: > I recall reading a while ago that leica images have that "leica look",
: > or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
: > images, but i can't remember where i read that.
: >
: > what's that?
: 1) The look a camera salesperson gets on his face when he spots a
: customer too eager to impress people with money;
: 2) An imaginary quality to an image that is conjured up when the
: proud owner of an expensive camera realizes he still doesn't know jack
: about photography;
: 3) The look any sensible person gets on their face when they see a
: 50mm lens that the manufacturer seriously expects people to pay over a
: thousand dollars for - generally a mix between incredulity and sadness or
: fear over where Mankind is headed.
: Glad to be of help!
I always thought the leica look was the person with a leica hanging around his
neck and no idea of how to use it.
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
Mxsmanic
> The distinction is particularly interesting for digital
> photography. We can easily add contrast in the digital domain;
> we cannot increase resolution.
Contrast in final images is not the same as contrast in lens
performance.
> A film photographer might desire
> the sharpening effect of lenses that maximize contrast.
Lenses cannot provide sharpening.
Michael Scarpitti
> "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2fd2ff8c.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in message
> news:<6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com>...
> > > I recall reading a while ago that leica images have that "leica look",
> > > or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
> > > images, but i can't remember where i read that.
> > >
> > > what's that?
> >
> > If it's some other camera lens, it's not a 'Leica look'.
>
> So, you can't describe it?
I can recognize it, for sure.
> Are you sure it's there?
Yes. When I bought my first Leicaflex and lenses back in the early
70's, when I was a college student working with the yearbook, I was
using the Nikon equipment the yearbook owned. The differences were
startling. The Leicaflex lens photos were 'creamier' and richer
looking, with greater tonal subtleties in B&W and better color
differentiation and saturation in color work.
The only Nikkor lens that I liked was the 105 f/2,5. My 21mm f/4
Super-Angulon absolutely trounced the Nikon 20mm f/3,5, which was
visibly soft in the corners. My 250mm Telyt-R f/4 was far better than
either the 200mm f/4 Nikkor or the 300mm f/4,5. My 90mm Elmarit-R and
later 90mm Summicron-R were superb. My 50mm Summiliux-R f/1,4 was far
better than the Nikkor 50mm f/1,4 or f/2,0.
Chris Loffredo
No, that's digital....
TP
>If you think anyone can make as good a lens for $200 you're sadly
>mistaken.
Al makes it clear that he doesn't believe in quality glass.
If it's cheap enough for Al, it's automatically good enough.
;-)
TP
>
>The "Leica look" is just a misnomer for the very high image quality one
>obtains when using the best camera lenses. Leica makes very good
>lenses--and it has no "consumer" line of cheapo lenses--so just about
>anything shot with a Leica lens has this quality. However, photographs
>taken with other lenses of similar quality from other manufacturers have
>the same "look." Shoot with a top-end lens from any major manufacturer
>and you'll get that "Leica look" easily enough.
Unfortunately that simply isn't true. For example, many top-end
Nikkors are optimised for sharpness (MTF) at the expense of other
characteristics such as a smooth rendition of out of focus elements of
the shot (bokeh).
Leica lenses are also optimised for sharpness, but *not* at the
expense of bokeh. It is very rare to find a modern Leica lens that
does not perform well in every department, including high resolution
and contrast, strong resistance to flare, absence of distortion and
colour fringing as well as superb micro-contrast and bokeh.
The most obvious example is the previous version of the 50mm f/1.4
Summilux-M, which is not especially sharp by (high) Leica standards,
but has outstanding bokeh.
TP
>
>Picking and choosing
>lenses from some other companies can get you lenses that render images
>indistinguishable from those made using Leica lenses.
I agree with all you said, Gordon, but feel that the point above
should be explained in more detail, by way of an example.
You can pick and choose several Nikon lenses that have something
approaching a "Leica look", but you cannot make a whole outfit of
Nikkors that all produce that look, unless you are prepared to
sacrifice several focal length ranges, notably including 28mm, 35mm
and 50mm - unless you consider the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P a useful working
tool, which I don't.
The same is true of Canon and Minolta glass. There are some
outstanding lenses, just not enough for a complete outfit.
The only 35mm lens ranges that have potential "Leica look" contenders
in most focal lengths are Carl Zeiss (for Contax SLRs and G Series)
and Pentax. With Pentax, you have to pick and choose a little, but a
little research shows there is at least one "Leica look" contender in
just about every focal length range.
With Contax, you just buy any fixed focal length lens except the 35mm
f/2 for Contax G, which is not especially sharp. But all the others
have a "Zeiss look" which is closely similar to the "Leica look", and
mostly for much lower prices.
TP
Nonsense.
They are two quite different optical parameters, which in
combination produce what we call "apparent sharpness"
Mathematically combined, they produce MTF.
TP
>Lenses cannot provide sharpening.
And Mxsmanic cannot provide intelligent comment.
Collin Brendemuehl
There are two definitions as I understand it:
#1 The "leica look" is a reproductive quality from the better lens designs.
You'll get it, with modern improvements, in the Pentax Limited series lenses of
31mm, 43mm, and 77mm. (Metal housing construction AND autofocus as well.)
Some call it a "3-D" effect.
#2 It's how you need to feel to justify carrying those expensive lenses around.
Collin
TP
>
>The wide open performance of the 35 ASPH is strictly up to its
>marketing hype, and the accolades delivered by other users are not
>just talk to justify the price. Remember we are talking about
>performance at f2.0 that many lenses don't deliver to f8.0. The images
>separate from the backgound nicely, but IMO it just is different from
>the "typical" "leica look/glow". I believe the high degree of
>correction on this lens has pushed it over the "look" barrier.
I didn't replace my pre-ASPH but kept it when I bought the ASPH.
If I want ultimate sharpness with good bokeh I use the ASPH. If I
want the true "Leica look" it is the pre-ASPH every time, but I feel
that the ASPH hasn't gone over the "look" barrier, it just got close.
;-)
TP
>#1 The "leica look" is a reproductive quality from the better lens designs.
>You'll get it, with modern improvements, in the Pentax Limited series lenses of
>31mm, 43mm, and 77mm. (Metal housing construction AND autofocus as well.)
>Some call it a "3-D" effect.
Despite the Pentax hype, the only Pentax Limited lens that has
anything like the "Leica look" is the 77mm. The 43mm and 31mm
certainly do not have that "Leica look"; they have a distinctive
over-sharpened harsh look, all of their own, which I find quite
unpleasant - as do many other people.
On the other hand, there are Pentax K lenses which do approximate to
the "Leica look", including the SMC-A 28mm f/2.8, most versions of the
35mm f/2, SMC-A 50mm f/1.4 (best bokeh of any 50mm lens I have ever
used) and the SMC-A* 85mm f/1.4.
Al Denelsbeck
news:86sdc0dffuhocfbrf...@4ax.com:
Ahhh, Tony, you're twisting my words again! What have I told you
about that?
As far as I'm concerned, if it produces a great image, it's good
enough for me. Over the years, from countless photographers, this has
proven to me only one thing: It ain't the glass.
If Leicaphiles want to believe it is, and spend a hell of a lot of
time insisting on it, that is, of course, their prerogative.
And if I think they're trying desperately to justify getting reamed
by a marketing gimmick, well, that's mine!
Cheers!
;-)
Collin Brendemuehl
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:34:37 +0100
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
.
.dpcw...@excite.com (Collin Brendemuehl) wrote:
.
.>#1 The "leica look" is a reproductive quality from the better lens
designs.
.>You'll get it, with modern improvements, in the Pentax Limited
series lenses of
.>31mm, 43mm, and 77mm. (Metal housing construction AND autofocus as
well.)
.>Some call it a "3-D" effect.
.
.
.Despite the Pentax hype, the only Pentax Limited lens that has
.anything like the "Leica look" is the 77mm. The 43mm and 31mm
.certainly do not have that "Leica look"; they have a distinctive
.over-sharpened harsh look, all of their own, which I find quite
.unpleasant - as do many other people.
.
.On the other hand, there are Pentax K lenses which do approximate to
.the "Leica look", including the SMC-A 28mm f/2.8, most versions of
the
.35mm f/2, SMC-A 50mm f/1.4 (best bokeh of any 50mm lens I have ever
.used) and the SMC-A* 85mm f/1.4.
The 43mm (I've tried two of them) does have too much barrel distortion
and works best when focused at longes distances than close up. I've
not seen any "harsh" reports from any users regarding the 31 & 77.
Some do say that they're "too sharp", but nobody has said anything
that can't be corrected with better lighting control.
I could understand if you mentioned the A28/2 or A24/2.8 or A24/2, but
not the A28/2.8. That's a lens we Pentaxians consider a bit average.
Good, but not great. The cool "A" coatings (maybe that's a big part
of the Leica look -- good color correction) help provide good
contrast, but nothing spectacular wrt any other characteristic. It's
just a re-coating of the M28/2.8 #2 (there were 2 versions of the
M28/2.8, and the first one was a real dog, but the 2nd was greatly
improved).
The FA lenses went to a slightly warmer coating cast, having a mixed
brownish/purplish tone. They give that good contrast as well as
accurate color correction. Similar a Schneider LF lens. Personally,
the best bargains in Pentax are the F50/1.7 or 1.4. The cosmetics are
not very pretty so they're avoided, but the coatings and optics are
first-rate, so they go cheaper and give the same performance as newer
FA lenses.
My personal favorite is the A100/2.8. Not the macro version. It's
sharp, contrasty, lightweight, and @ 5.6 give that great bokeh/3-D
effect. I parted with mine last year as it sustained a front element
coating prick, but am looking to acquire another.
On PDML, the A85/1.4 was compared head-to-head with the Zeiss 85/1.4.
Search the archives, available @ www.pdml.net, for the results.
Basically a toss-up. Zeiss was sharper in the corners, Pentax far
more resistant to flare. But both outstanding.
Collin
Michael Scarpitti
Yes and no. Leica lenses do have a 'family look' that is instantly
recognizable to those who are familiar with it. If you were to lay out
slides on a light table taken with the range of 1970's Leicaflex
lenses and Nikkor lenses of the same era, it would be easy to tell
them apart, and to see the similarity among the Leicaflex lenses.
Sabineellen
>little research shows there is at least one "Leica look" contender in
>just about every focal length range.
What ones do you know of?
TP
> Ahhh, Tony, you're twisting my words again! What have I told you
>about that?
I made the mistake of reading your web site, which has
your explanation of your pursuit of optical mediocrity.
To paraphrase:
"Never aspire to excellence when mediocrity will do."
;-)
TP
>I could understand if you mentioned the A28/2 or A24/2.8 or A24/2, but
>not the A28/2.8. That's a lens we Pentaxians consider a bit average.
>Good, but not great.
On the contrary, the SMC-M 28/2.8 is the poor performer, but the SMC-A
28/2.8 is simply superb. The optics are very different; the coatings
are very different, the build quality is not so good but who cares?
Just buy two, like I have, to have a spare when the first one breaks.
It hasn't yet. ;-)
The later version of the SMC-M 28/2.8, without the chrome ring, shares
the better optics but not the better coatings.
Matt Clara
I don't doubt it, just giving you a hard time.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >Picking and choosing
> >lenses from some other companies can get you lenses that render images
> >indistinguishable from those made using Leica lenses.
>
> I agree with all you said, Gordon, but feel that the point above
> should be explained in more detail, by way of an example.
>
> You can pick and choose several Nikon lenses that have something
> approaching a "Leica look", but you cannot make a whole outfit of
> Nikkors that all produce that look, unless you are prepared to
> sacrifice several focal length ranges, notably including 28mm, 35mm
> and 50mm - unless you consider the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P a useful working
> tool, which I don't.
I have not tried the new 45 mm f2.8. In general, as the lens focal length
goes wider, I look for better stopped down performance. Of the focal
lengths you have named, there are some choices, but only within certain
constrictions. With 28 mm, this is the realm where stopped down
performance is more important to me than defocus rendition. The
unfortunate thing with the Nikon choices is that only the earlier f3.5
examples have good performance, and I state unfortunate because they are
not bright enough to use under low light conditions on an SLR. That and
the fact that I actually am finding a need for a slightly wider view,
means I will probably sell my 28 mm.
Okay, so in 35 mm, the best I have found from Nikon is their f2.8 shift
lens. I know you are familiar with the difficulties in using one, unless
you leave it at f2.8. However, some people like a more defocused image at
the 35 mm length, and I have found nothing from Nikon that offers good
defocus rendition and a large aperture (f2.8 is not really large at all).
I have tried a few f1.4 Nikons, and one f2.0 Nikon, but they are obvious
in their rendition differences to any Leica M choices.
The 50 mm length is another area where a great deal of picking and
choosing is required. I had an earlier Leica 50 mm f1.4 Summilux (I think
1960s version, but this was borrowed) for a while, and while generally
good results, there were sometimes distracting highlight problems in the
defocus areas. The workaround was to avoid backgrounds with point light
sources, or high contrast small areas. This same workaround applies to the
Nikon 50 mm f2.0 AI (long barrel version), though the slightly older Leica
50 mm f2.0 Summicron mostly avoids that issue (too bad I sold that one). A
really harsh comparison is the Nikon 50 mm F1.4 AIS, though I think the
sample variation is really at play here; I went through six of these
before finding a good one (which I still own). The f1.4 AIS has an even
worse problem with highlights in the defocus areas, though largely I use
this lens only as a night imagery choice. Those two image links I gave
almost make a nice Leica and Nikon 50 mm comparison, but only for those
who can guess which is which. ;-)
>
>
> The same is true of Canon and Minolta glass. There are some
> outstanding lenses, just not enough for a complete outfit.
Which brings up an interesting point. I think the concept of mix and match
systems is still a valid choice. I started out my serious (and first paid
shoots) using a combination of Nikon FM with two lenses, and Leica M3 and
two lenses. There were advantages to using the SLR, and advantages to
using the rangefinder, and both systems were very complimentary. This was
in the early 1990s, so obviously both set-ups were very used. Only the FM
still is working, since both the shutter and winding mechanism failed on
the M3. :-(
>
>
> The only 35mm lens ranges that have potential "Leica look" contenders
> in most focal lengths are Carl Zeiss (for Contax SLRs and G Series)
Fairly consistent there. I almost would have went all Contax, except there
are so many rental places that have Nikon gear. In the mid 1990s, that
availability of rental gear made my decision to go Nikon.
>
> and Pentax. With Pentax, you have to pick and choose a little, but a
> little research shows there is at least one "Leica look" contender in
> just about every focal length range.
Some slightly odd focal lengths, but yes some good choices. My bias
against Pentax comes from an early misadventure using a K1000, which
really was a PoS. If I had started with an LX, I would have a better
opinion of Pentax.
>
>
> With Contax, you just buy any fixed focal length lens except the 35mm
> f/2 for Contax G, which is not especially sharp. But all the others
> have a "Zeiss look" which is closely similar to the "Leica look", and
> mostly for much lower prices.
Agreed on that, and relatively a bargain on the used market, especially in
comparison to Leica R choices in SLR. With the G2, I just did not like the
viewfinder system, though it was an otherwise nice camera, and I think a
good choice for those who want autofocus.
So, definitely I am not in disagreement with your statements. The odds of
getting good lenses by choosing Leica (or Zeiss) are generally better than
finding good lenses from other companies.
Al Denelsbeck
news:3jeec05ve2579d2o3...@4ax.com:
There's that winky again. Methinks Tony believes this is a valid
excuse for being a cranky yet ill-informed ass.
;-) or maybe ;-P, if you like.
You do realize you're paraphrasing an easily quoted, and relatively
short, piece of text to the author of said text, don't you? Is there any
way this can possibly not be construed as presumptious at best, if not
outright asinine?
You could feel free to quote it, as long as you linked to the source:
"And again, the strength in photography lies not with the technical
perfection, but in the image itself, the way you convey your vision or your
message. Composition and artistic merit are far more important, and will
garner far more attention to your images. A super-sharp image with bad
exposure won't impress people. Learn how to use whatever equipment you have
or can afford, and learn how to create a striking photo. It'll do so much
more for you."
http://wading-in.net/Equipment.html
If you had indeed read the text, instead of attempting to assign your
own meaning to it, you would have seen that I don't denigrate good
equipment. I simply don't practice idolatry over it, and find the hype over
the properties to be exaggerated well out of proportion.
You are, of course, welcome to point out where on that page I
invalidated my post earlier that you just responded to, the one where I say
that a great image isn't made by the glass. Your post seems to be
intentionally ignoring that aspect, though.
Hey, you know what else is on that page? A couple of examples of
resolution from a dreaded Sigma 170-500mm doom-zoom lens, used with a (dare
I say it?) 2x teleconverter! I seem to recall, very specifically and on
more than one occasion, Tony "I Do Declare" Polson saying that it was
impossible to determine resolution from a web image.
Gosh, it's a shame you brought that to everyone's attention now,
isn't it? And I, for one, will enjoy the traffic increase to my site. It's
chock full of my images, right alongside the specs of the equipment used to
get them. How people feel about the images is, of course, entirely up to
them. I've said it before, the site is listed in my sig to give everyone
the chance to judge for themselves. I have nothing to hide.
Shame that isn't contagious.
Cheers!
Dallas
> Gordon Moat writes:
>
>> Anyway, the much older Leica lenses of the 1950s through 1970s biased
>> ultra fine resolution over contrast, sometimes termed micro contrast.
>
> Contrast and resolution are the same thing.
Ex-squeeze me?
Could you repeat that? I could have sworn I read a lot of bull, but maybe
it was just the low contrast setting on my 1280x1024 resolution monitor
that screwed up the type?
--
R.I.P. Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2004
You helped make the world a better place.
Chris Loffredo
--
R.I.P. Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2004
You helped make the world a better place.
Yes, he tried to veto anti-apartheid legislation. Is that what you mean?
Lewis Lang
you want to buy a piece of fine German craftsmanship that's more expensive than
your first car ;-).
Seriously, though, Leica lenses are said to have a "glow" about them, they
light up in the dark (again, just kidding) ;-). I've owned Leica gear several
times over and for me it has several qualities:
1) Most lenses (Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax) are sharp today and have good
overall contrast, but... Micro-contrast in Leica lenses is/appears to be higher
than most other brands. There is greater separation between close together
tones and/or hues which gives things in the image a clarity/reality/presence
that's virtually three-dimensional (as if you are looking at the scene itself
not an image) almost equivalent to a larger (if not large) format. Some say its
because of superior correction for different aberrations or the type of glass
used. Many times Leica and Zeiss lenses are compared as being the two "tops" in
their "looks"/renditions but Zeiss lenses (to me) appear to have better
"acutance" (also known as edge contrast) which tends to pop the subject's
outline from its surroundings (regardless of shallow or deep depth of field
considerations) while Leica lenses have greater ability to distinguish subtle
tonal transitions ("micro-contrast"). My experience is with Leica R and M
(reflex and rangefinder) lenses and Zeiss SLR lenses so I can't comment as to
whther the Contax G ranfefinder system also follows the "Zeiss look" in their
more recent lenses. Pentax's Ltd. lenses (a special series of superbly crafted
and superb optical quality lenses in odd focal lengths) also seem to me to have
much of "the Leica look" too, but their high prices also seem to reflect that
too ;-).
2. Bokeh.
This is a Japaneese word coopted to describe the quality of the out of focus
areas of an image and within this term are many different factors but I will
only go into distinctive Leica bokeh factors.
Across the brands you will always find lenses that have "good bokeh", the Nikon
105/2.5 AIS lens is an example of this from a non-Leica brand (bokeh is
subjective to taste but usually good bokeh refers to how the "coc" or circle of
confusion (out of focus circles of hi/light) is rendered as either a donut/ring
shape (bad bokeh) with a dark center and brightly lit edges, trees and other
hard edged oof subjects can appear with double lines or "ni sen bokeh" - either
of these effects brings attention to the jarring background instead of the
subject, neutral bokeh has a flat evenly illuminated disc (like a coin if you
will) and then there's "good bokeh" which not only has smoothness to the
rendition of out of focus areas but has a coc with a bright center that fades
off into the edges (the opposite of donut/ring "bad bokeh").
But Leica lenses not only have good bokeh but they also have what I (and
others) will call image integrity or image cohesion. That means that out of
focus areas still retain their details even though they ar out of focus and the
oof areas/details don't become a jumbled blob or even a smooth blob, you can
still see the details even though the area is out of focus. This is probably
due to superior correction of aberrations such as chromatic and spherical
aberrations. Erwin Puts (spelling?) has a site on Leica lenses that can go more
into depth on these points.
3. Colors appear hyper-real, very saturated yet neutral and still real. Zeiss
lenses tend to appear surreal in both their contrast and color saturation
(possibly warmer too though I haven't done a side by side I remember).
Not part of "the Leica Look" are the superior metal construction of their
lenses and the use of brass and aluminum (? can't remember) for the helicoids
(these babies last a long, long time and don't wear out) and the use of various
types of rare? glass, high quality control (very little variation in the
batches, when you buy a Leica lens you usually know you are paying for/going to
get some superb glass in advance).
This is only the beginning. Leica is both a camera/lens line and a religion and
there are probably a near infinite amount of discussions/illuminations/insights
about the Leica glass/system that others have or can make. If you can, go to a
pro photo store's used or rental department and rent out the gear yourself and
put in some Kodachrome or Velvia slides (or 400 speed or slower black and
white) and you'll be able to see/tell for yourself first hand what the "Leica
look" is like.
Sohms see it and "Leica" it, Sohms don't and won't pay for it, some see a small
improvement not worth their price and some can't afford and just oggle it form
afar, but whatever you do or decide, don't go just by the opinions of others,
try it for yourself and argue from experience/preference... or just go shoot
pictures with whatever you have (or will have if you do decide to get into
Leica). Leica is expensive, only you can decide if their optical excellence is
too expensive for your needs and/or business or a bargain at any price :-).
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Lewis Lang
>From: TP t...@nospam.net
>Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2004 7:26 AM
>Message-id: <5a8bc05mut3apri89...@4ax.com>
>
>mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote:
>
>>I recall reading a while ago that leica images have that "leica look",
>>or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
>>images, but i can't remember where i read that.
>>
>>what's that?
>
>
>no apparent distortion or colour fringing, excellent colour rendition,
>detailed micro-contrast and smooth bokeh (a pleasant blurring of out
>of focus elements of the shot, especially highlights).
>
>You don't need a Leica lens to achieve this look. Many manufacturers
>have at least one lens within their range that will achieve a
>comparable look.
>
>However, there are very few manufacturers who have a whole range of
>lenses that produce the characteristics listed above. I would suggest
>that only the ranges of Carl Zeiss lenses for 35mm SLRs and the Contax
>G Series would come close.
>
Hey Tony! I just worte all that too, I should have read your post before I
wrote mine ;-).
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <sjtdc0pgvl78abbje...@4ax.com>
Vanilla and chocolate, up and down, day and night, rainy and sunny and
medicrity and excellence are all the same things ;-) Its "pataphysical" (all
things being equal)... and a bit "parapsychotic" too ;-)
TP
>Hey Tony! I just worte all that too, I should have read your post before I
>wrote mine ;-).
Careful, Lewis, or Dallas will accuse you of being me, along with Tony
Parkinson. Didn't you know that, in the eyes of the delusional South
African unemployed mall photographer, all people with the initials TP
are the same person? Now all LLs can be TPs too, including that
famous warranty.
;-)
TP
>
>You do realize you're paraphrasing an easily quoted, and relatively
>short, piece of text to the author of said text, don't you?
Yes, of course I do!
;-)
TP
Maybe Dallas means that Reagan supported undemocratic, authoritarian
and repressive regimes all over the world, not just in South Africa.
And the Iran Contra affair was just another shady business deal that
any self-respecting racist South African could relate to, and admire.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 7:16 AM
>Message-id: <2csdc0t7ci1nf2f0j...@4ax.com>
>
>On 8 Jun 2004 03:11:11 -0700, in rec.photo.equipment.35mm you wrote:
>
>>I recall reading a while ago that leica images have that "leica look",
>>or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
>>images, but i can't remember where i read that.
>>
>>what's that?
>
>over time.
>
>My earliest lens was a 50mm Summarit. It was an excellent performer
>with the light source to your back. It flared "badly" with direct
>illumination. The edges were a bit soft at full aperture but the
>center was sharp. The images really did "glow" under some conditions
>due to a flaring between areas of high contrast, but stopped down it
>was just a "great" lens.
>
>My second lens is still my favorite, a 50mm Summilux now about 35-40
>years old - I bought it used about 25 years ago. This was the lens
>that taught me to see images at f1.4. The "glow" is much, much
>reduced. Detail and contrast are on par with the best of lenses at
>nearly all apertures. Stopped down performance is brilliant and the
>lens holds contrast better than any of my Nikkors. My wife can tell
>the difference between images with this lens and the Nikkors, mainly
>by color contrast. B&W images are just superb if you can compress the
>full tonal range of the negative onto the paper. IME that takes a lot
>of calibration and patience.
>
>My third lens was a 35mm RF Summicron. An original summicron with "bug
>eyes" for use on a M3. The glow was back, the flare was also back and
>the image had a very "tunneled" look at f2.0 with edge/corner
>vignetting. Still the image was unique, but not what I was looking for
>in a general purpose lens. Again at mid to full apertures the full
>frame performance and color contrast was eye popping, but I was
>looking for full aperture performance.
>
>I replaced the RF lens with a 35mm ASPH Summicron. This has a look but
>it is nothing IMO like the previous lenses. The bokeh is not nearly as
>pleasant but the sharpness and contrast are the best of any lens I've
>ever owned. Although the little Contax T3 lens comes close for
>backlighted performance, it doesn't handle flare as well as the ASPH.
>I guess the extra $1000 has something to do with it.
>
>The wide open performance of the 35 ASPH is strictly up to its
>marketing hype, and the accolades delivered by other users are not
>just talk to justify the price. Remember we are talking about
>performance at f2.0 that many lenses don't deliver to f8.0. The images
>separate from the backgound nicely, but IMO it just is different from
>the "typical" "leica look/glow". I believe the high degree of
>correction on this lens has pushed it over the "look" barrier.
>
>something you need to work with to begin to understand. None of my
>traditional Nikkors have "it", however my 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G ED IF
>lens has some elements. Great color contrast, reasonable flare
>handling, improving bokeh for a Nikkor but it looks more like a modern
>ASPH Leica than a pre ASPH. It's difficult to describe, because IMO it
>is multifeatured and in my experience, no other line of lenses really
>repeats it and the recent "imitators" like my Nikkor zoom are
>imitating the modern look and not the "traditional" look.
SNIP
Hi Rodger:
When you say that "no other line of lenses really
repeats it" are you talking about the ASPH or the pre-asph 35mm?
TIA
TP
>What ones do you know of?
Plenty.
If you do your research thoroughly, you will be able to find them too.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 9:34 AM
>Message-id: <p34ec0hcef6e89rhn...@4ax.com>
Iwould agree with most of what you've said above, Tony, however my experience
with the 31mm Ltd. (albeit on an *ist Digital) has been that its very much a
Leica clone in its clarity/three dimensionality and the smoothness of its
bokeh. If I wanted a "cheap" Leica AF system it (and an MZ-S or the *ist
Digital if I had to have digital) would be my first and last choice. In a
ddition its inbetween focal length makes not having to choose between a 28mm
and a 35mm a cinch. Beyond this I am still waiting for a 24mm and an 18mm and a
90mm or above (and the eventual Pentax Ltd. zoom if it ever shows) to round out
this excellent system.
TP
Nice bokeh, sharp. Poor resistance to flare unless used with the
silly "coolie hat"lens hood.
>In general, as the lens focal length
>goes wider, I look for better stopped down performance. Of the focal
>lengths you have named, there are some choices, but only within certain
>constrictions. With 28 mm, this is the realm where stopped down
>performance is more important to me than defocus rendition. The
>unfortunate thing with the Nikon choices is that only the earlier f3.5
>examples have good performance, and I state unfortunate because they are
>not bright enough to use under low light conditions on an SLR. That and
>the fact that I actually am finding a need for a slightly wider view,
>means I will probably sell my 28 mm.
The best 28mm Nikkor by far is the AF-D. I think you would find the
stopped down performance to your liking, and I would tolerate its
indifferent OOF rendition if I still used Nikon gear.
>Okay, so in 35 mm, the best I have found from Nikon is their f2.8 shift
>lens. I know you are familiar with the difficulties in using one, unless
>you leave it at f2.8. However, some people like a more defocused image at
>the 35 mm length, and I have found nothing from Nikon that offers good
>defocus rendition and a large aperture (f2.8 is not really large at all).
I agree, the 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor is a very fine lens. The 28mm f/3.5
PC-Nikkor is also a very fine lens.
>I have tried a few f1.4 Nikons, and one f2.0 Nikon, but they are obvious
>in their rendition differences to any Leica M choices.
>The 50 mm length is another area where a great deal of picking and
>choosing is required. I had an earlier Leica 50 mm f1.4 Summilux (I think
>1960s version, but this was borrowed) for a while, and while generally
>good results, there were sometimes distracting highlight problems in the
>defocus areas. The workaround was to avoid backgrounds with point light
>sources, or high contrast small areas. This same workaround applies to the
>Nikon 50 mm f2.0 AI (long barrel version), though the slightly older Leica
>50 mm f2.0 Summicron mostly avoids that issue (too bad I sold that one). A
>really harsh comparison is the Nikon 50 mm F1.4 AIS, though I think the
>sample variation is really at play here; I went through six of these
>before finding a good one (which I still own). The f1.4 AIS has an even
>worse problem with highlights in the defocus areas, though largely I use
>this lens only as a night imagery choice. Those two image links I gave
>almost make a nice Leica and Nikon 50 mm comparison, but only for those
>who can guess which is which. ;-)
The f/1.8 AIS is even worse than the f/1.4 in the bokeh department.
:-(
>> The same is true of Canon and Minolta glass. There are some
>> outstanding lenses, just not enough for a complete outfit.
>
>Which brings up an interesting point. I think the concept of mix and match
>systems is still a valid choice. I started out my serious (and first paid
>shoots) using a combination of Nikon FM with two lenses, and Leica M3 and
>two lenses. There were advantages to using the SLR, and advantages to
>using the rangefinder, and both systems were very complimentary. This was
>in the early 1990s, so obviously both set-ups were very used. Only the FM
>still is working, since both the shutter and winding mechanism failed on
>the M3. :-(
Mix and match is good. I often take a Leica body, or a Minolta CLE,
as a spare body for my Pentax outfit, which is itself a backup to the
Olympus E outfit. I have a precision made custom Pentax K to Leica M
adapter and a Soviet viewfinder with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm
settings. enabling me to use Pentax lenses of these approximate focal
lengths. I also take the 28mm, 40mm and 90mm CLE lenses ...
>> The only 35mm lens ranges that have potential "Leica look" contenders
>> in most focal lengths are Carl Zeiss (for Contax SLRs and G Series)
>
>Fairly consistent there. I almost would have went all Contax, except there
>are so many rental places that have Nikon gear. In the mid 1990s, that
>availability of rental gear made my decision to go Nikon.
>
>>
>> and Pentax. With Pentax, you have to pick and choose a little, but a
>> little research shows there is at least one "Leica look" contender in
>> just about every focal length range.
>
>Some slightly odd focal lengths, but yes some good choices. My bias
>against Pentax comes from an early misadventure using a K1000, which
>really was a PoS. If I had started with an LX, I would have a better
>opinion of Pentax.
The odd focal lengths are in the bizarre "Limited" range which claim
to be designed for good bokeh, but two out of the three lenses have
very harsh OOF rendition. The good one is the 77mm.
>> With Contax, you just buy any fixed focal length lens except the 35mm
>> f/2 for Contax G, which is not especially sharp. But all the others
>> have a "Zeiss look" which is closely similar to the "Leica look", and
>> mostly for much lower prices.
>
>Agreed on that, and relatively a bargain on the used market, especially in
>comparison to Leica R choices in SLR. With the G2, I just did not like the
>viewfinder system, though it was an otherwise nice camera, and I think a
>good choice for those who want autofocus.
Agreed.
>So, definitely I am not in disagreement with your statements. The odds of
>getting good lenses by choosing Leica (or Zeiss) are generally better than
>finding good lenses from other companies.
Thanks, Gordon.
Sabineellen
>tones and/or hues which gives things in the image a clarity/reality/presence
>that's virtually three-dimensional (as if you are looking at the scene itself
>not an image)
http://www.pbase.com/image/29023316
even scanned, compressed and on a monitor screen it still looks sorta
three-dimensional to me
Sabineellen
>tones and/or hues which gives things in the image a clarity/reality/presence
>that's virtually three-dimensional (as if you are looking at the scene itself
>not an image)
http://www.pbase.com/image/20968828
*fingers itching to click "buy now"*
William Graham
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.0406...@posting.google.com...
> "Matt Clara" <no.e...@this.guys.expense> wrote in message
news:<6hpxc.6215257$iA2.7...@news.easynews.com>...
> > "Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fd2ff8c.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > > mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in message
> > news:<6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com>...
look",
> > > > or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
> > > > images, but i can't remember where i read that.
> > > >
> > > > what's that?
> > >
> >
> > So, you can't describe it?
>
> I can recognize it, for sure.
>
> > Are you sure it's there?
>
> Yes. When I bought my first Leicaflex and lenses back in the early
> 70's, when I was a college student working with the yearbook, I was
> using the Nikon equipment the yearbook owned. The differences were
> startling. The Leicaflex lens photos were 'creamier' and richer
> looking, with greater tonal subtleties in B&W and better color
> differentiation and saturation in color work.
>
> The only Nikkor lens that I liked was the 105 f/2,5. My 21mm f/4
> Super-Angulon absolutely trounced the Nikon 20mm f/3,5, which was
> visibly soft in the corners.
KEH has a couple of these on sale right now.....
See:
http://www.keh.com/shop/SHOWPRODUCT.CFM?CRID=7849396&SKID=LR0699901238306&SID=newused&BID=LR&CID=06&SOID=N&curpic=0&dpsp=0
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 7:07 PM
>Message-id: <20040609190700...@mb-m18.aol.com>
Hard to tell on my monitor except for the overlapping/recession of chairs which
gives it a 3D effect. The chairs are rather the same tone/hue so its hard to
tell much about 3D tonal/hue subtleties from this shot. Plus the fact that its
a jpeg on a monitor doesn't help it and the lighting seems like either head on
daylight from a window (in front of the subject but nehind the cameraman) or on
camera (frontal) flash with tungsten ambient or drag shutter for the yellowish
background so the front is lit flat/stark and the background goes a
monochronish yellow - not the best of test conditions to show differences.
(Hint - "all photos look equally great in the dark" ;-)). There would be more
subtle color/hue variation in some human heads (both hair and faces/etc.) as
well as other subjects. Bokeh is nice though.
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <20040609190925...@mb-m18.aol.com>
You mean the 21mm asph or the Leica M7. The blues are really intense, makes me
want to shoot some Velvia once again...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 6:28 PM
>Message-id: <pk3fc0lq8l5ltsido...@4ax.com>
I thought I was already everybody and this is just my way of acting out in my
head while giving my fingers some exercise ;-).
Lewis Lang
>Message-id: <hs3fc0pcdll41489b...@4ax.com>
I am not going to get into a political debate here but I will say that I miss
Ronald Reagan both as a man and as a president - he served this country well.
His successors, to put it kindly, have seemed lackluster in comparison. I
belong to no party as noone would want me at their party ;-) and I don't like
group mentalities. Which begs the question why am I on usenet, but that's a
question for greater minds than mine... ;-)
Mike Henley
>
>
> Hahaha!!! Don't make me laugh.
>
> I saw you recommended a cheap Minox zoom point and shoot camera in
> another thread. That's a bad recommendation, because the limitations
> of a zoom p+s camera are much the same almost regardless of brand. At
> this price point, it pays not to expect too much, and you should
> certainly not expect the "Leica look".
>
> ;-)
"Its lens is a very good quality Minoxar 35/2.8 ... not
quite the equal of the Rollei's Sonnar 40/2.8 wide open, but very close
when stopped down to f/5.6 and with a very nice imaging character (photos
taken with it have a look like a Leica pre-ASPH 35mm lens)."
Not sure i understand pre-ASPH though.
Gordon Moat
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >I have not tried the new 45 mm f2.8.
>
> Nice bokeh, sharp. Poor resistance to flare unless used with the
> silly "coolie hat"lens hood.
I have a bunch of the old metal lens hoods for the various Nikon lenses I own
(those without built in hoods), and I sort of like the old round shapes. These
newer variations do look strange.
>
>
> >In general, as the lens focal length
> >goes wider, I look for better stopped down performance. Of the focal
> >lengths you have named, there are some choices, but only within certain
> >constrictions. With 28 mm, this is the realm where stopped down
> >performance is more important to me than defocus rendition. The
> >unfortunate thing with the Nikon choices is that only the earlier f3.5
> >examples have good performance, and I state unfortunate because they are
> >not bright enough to use under low light conditions on an SLR. That and
> >the fact that I actually am finding a need for a slightly wider view,
> >means I will probably sell my 28 mm.
>
> The best 28mm Nikkor by far is the AF-D. I think you would find the
> stopped down performance to your liking, and I would tolerate its
> indifferent OOF rendition if I still used Nikon gear.
Just never liked the manual focus feel of the autofocus lenses. The 80-200 was
almost tolerable, but I doubt I would buy one. Anyway, I have been considering
the 24 mm f2.8 AI and AIS with CRC, mostly on stopped down performance. The 24
mm seems to suit my vision more than the 28 mm, but I might dismiss using
either if I get an XPan.
I found the same thing with those I tried. I have tried several of the f1.8
versions, and while the Series E was okay (may have been the sample), I still
found the older F2.0 AI version to be much better. I recently found the really
old metal hood for this, and flare is almost not an issue anymore.
>
>
> >> The same is true of Canon and Minolta glass. There are some
> >> outstanding lenses, just not enough for a complete outfit.
> >
> >Which brings up an interesting point. I think the concept of mix and match
> >systems is still a valid choice. I started out my serious (and first paid
> >shoots) using a combination of Nikon FM with two lenses, and Leica M3 and
> >two lenses. There were advantages to using the SLR, and advantages to
> >using the rangefinder, and both systems were very complimentary. This was
> >in the early 1990s, so obviously both set-ups were very used. Only the FM
> >still is working, since both the shutter and winding mechanism failed on
> >the M3. :-(
>
> Mix and match is good. I often take a Leica body, or a Minolta CLE,
> as a spare body for my Pentax outfit, which is itself a backup to the
> Olympus E outfit. I have a precision made custom Pentax K to Leica M
> adapter and a Soviet viewfinder with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm
> settings. enabling me to use Pentax lenses of these approximate focal
> lengths. I also take the 28mm, 40mm and 90mm CLE lenses ...
I was reading the book "Rangefinder" by Hicks & Schultz recently. They seem to
be big on these various adapters, and the accessory finders. Still not sure if
I will try that route.
>
>
> >> The only 35mm lens ranges that have potential "Leica look" contenders
> >> in most focal lengths are Carl Zeiss (for Contax SLRs and G Series)
> >
> >Fairly consistent there. I almost would have went all Contax, except there
> >are so many rental places that have Nikon gear. In the mid 1990s, that
> >availability of rental gear made my decision to go Nikon.
> >
> >>
> >> and Pentax. With Pentax, you have to pick and choose a little, but a
> >> little research shows there is at least one "Leica look" contender in
> >> just about every focal length range.
> >
> >Some slightly odd focal lengths, but yes some good choices. My bias
> >against Pentax comes from an early misadventure using a K1000, which
> >really was a PoS. If I had started with an LX, I would have a better
> >opinion of Pentax.
>
> The odd focal lengths are in the bizarre "Limited" range which claim
> to be designed for good bokeh, but two out of the three lenses have
> very harsh OOF rendition. The good one is the 77mm.
77 mm is still a strange focal length. I don't know anyone who has one of
these, so I have not yet seen any prints from one. I have seen quite a few
images from the older 85 mm f1.4, and I think the Pentax is slightly notable
in being a bit better than the similar Nikon. However, my favourite near that
range is two versions ago Leica 90 mm f2.8 (M rangefinder version, not R).
>
>
> . . . . . .
>
> >So, definitely I am not in disagreement with your statements. The odds of
> >getting good lenses by choosing Leica (or Zeiss) are generally better than
> >finding good lenses from other companies.
>
> Thanks, Gordon.
Later Tony!
Sabineellen
>You mean the 21mm asph or the Leica M7. The blues are really intense, makes
>me
>want to shoot some Velvia once again...
I mean the velvia :-)
Mxsmanic
> Unfortunately that simply isn't true. For example, many top-end
> Nikkors are optimised for sharpness (MTF) at the expense of other
> characteristics such as a smooth rendition of out of focus elements of
> the shot (bokeh).
I don't see any difference. They are all good lenses.
> Leica lenses are also optimised for sharpness, but *not* at the
> expense of bokeh.
I don't believe that Leica cares about bokeh at all, nor do any other
manufacturers. If the lens is well designed the out-of-focus areas will
look fine.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> Leica lenses do have a 'family look' that is instantly
> recognizable to those who are familiar with it.
Odd that they are unable to pick out Leica shot from a group of shots
taken with top lenses from several manufacturers, then. I even have to
make notes on which lens I used myself, otherwise I can't recognize the
Leica shots later.
> If you were to lay out slides on a light table taken
> with the range of 1970's Leicaflex lenses and Nikkor
> lenses of the same era, it would be easy to tell
> them apart, and to see the similarity among the Leicaflex lenses.
I'll believe that when I see it.
Mxsmanic
> Mathematically combined, they produce MTF.
They are not combined; they are simply inseparable to begin with.
Mxsmanic
> Could you repeat that? I could have sworn I read a lot of bull, but maybe
> it was just the low contrast setting on my 1280x1024 resolution monitor
> that screwed up the type?
Resolution is nothing more than the degree of contrast that is preserved
between details separated by a given distance. The greater the contrast
and the smaller the distance, the higher the resolution. An ideal lens
preserves 100% of contrast no matter how small the distance (infinite
resolution).
Mxsmanic
> like this for example?
> http://www.pbase.com/image/29023316
>
> even scanned, compressed and on a monitor screen it still looks sorta
> three-dimensional to me
Or these:
http://www.mxsmanic.com/kitty.jpg
http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg
Both shot wide open with the phenomenal Apo-Summicron-M 90/2 ASPH, which
never ceases to amaze me with its optical performance.
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 9:15 PM
>Message-id: <20040609211522...@mb-m18.aol.com>
;-)
Lewis Lang
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 8:18 PM
>Message-id: <6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com>
Pre-asph lenses are those lenses made by Leica before the use of aspherics.
They tend to have a smoother bokeh (out of focus rendition) wide open but not
as sharp wide open as their newer aspherical counterparts. The newer asph
(aspherical) versions from Leica are supposed to have slightly less smooth and
creamy (I know this is beginning to sound like the taste texture of yogurts now
;-)) bokeh than their pre/non/before asphs counterparts. Its a taste thing
really, and I'm not even talking about yogurt here ;-). Some prefer and/or need
exceptional quality wide open and are willing to sacrifice and/or don't care so
much about the (slightly harsher) differences in bokeh and therefore prefer the
more modern asph (aspherical) lenses and some prefer the more classic look
(like I do) of extremely smooth yummy bokeh and are willing to sacrifice some
wide open sharpness/etc. in exchange for that "bokehliscious" godd ol' Leica
look. ALso, the pre-asph Leica lenses are extremely sharp when stopped down to
mid apertures (particularly about f/5.6 or so) and even though I have not done
any comparison testing (I've only owned the Leica M lenses, both 35/1.4 and
35/2, both pre-asphs, not the asph versions) it would be hard for me to believe
that stopped down to equivalent mid-range stops that one could tell the
difference between the asphs and the pre-asphs in
sharpness/contrast/micro-contrast. But as I don't have the money for it right
now (and even if I did) it would be a moot point as I am more into the quality
of the image (aesthetics, psychological, ideological, emotional value of the
image) than "image quality." Fortunately for me my cheap wallet matches the
cheapness and excellence of the lens/focal length I prefer, a 50mm f/1.8 Series
E that is exceptionally sharp and contrasty (and I mean really exceptionally,
not just sharp but super uber duper sharp! :-)) and has a bokeh signature,
though not as creamy as Leica, when stopped down slightly comes damn close
(though Leica has better micor-contrast and "image integrity"/"image
cohesion"/retaining readability of details in out of focus areas) and with
wonderful color saturation too, though I am sure that a good 'ol 50/1.4 Zeiss
Planar or the new (or even the old) Leica R 50/1.4 would outdo it in color
characteristics and bokeh. It does have a 3D signature but it is not based on
"Leica-like" microcontrast subtle hues/tones separated or Zeiss-like" acutance
popping the subject's edges off of the oof background but is more the result of
some kind of complex bokeh effect that seems to smooth out unwanted details
(without turning them into jangly lines, blobs, etc.) more than the other 50mm
lenses at the same apertures so that the lack of detail in the oof areas (I
guess the opositte of "the Leica effect's" image cohesion) tends to make the in
focus subject plane pop against the oof area behind it much more than it should
at that focal length/aperture. Detail that would be disturbing with other 50mm
lenses (I believe I tested it against my Yashica 50mm which also has smooth
bokeh and a Konica 50?mm f/1.8 lens) is sort of smoothed/wiped out, not creamy
in the Leica way but smoothed out in its own sort of cream without the subtle
chunks of detail (just kidding/making an analogy about "the chunks", but it
applies) that would still be visible in Leica, Zeiss (and possibly some
Schneider and Pentax Ltd. glass though, again, I have experience with these
vbrands of 50mm lenses but haven't done any side to side comparisons).
I am thinking of either getting an adapter to use my Nikon 50mm on my AF Maxxum
Minolta body or of getting another cheap Nikon EM (with its excellent, easy to
focus, large, bright viewfinder) (my present EM has light leak problems due to
its shutter mechanism not any light seals so I can only use it under overcast
light or else I get a burn problem if the camera is aimed at the sun/bright
light source, but it was a free camera and I've made some of my best new images
on it, which are not on the webiste nor do I have a desire to put them up at
this point, so I can't complain) but haven't made up my mind yet as to which
direction I'll go. I'd love to consolidate my gear but the MF Nikon gear is so
tempting...
James Donovan
> Its the look your wallet or your girlfriend/boyfriend or spouse gives you when
> you want to buy a piece of fine German craftsmanship that's more expensive than
> your first car ;-).
How else could you make two months' salary last forever... A Leica is
forever.
</bad joke>
--
Regards,
James
TP
Can't you read? I wrote "zoom p+s". I have left it in the quoted
text above, so you can check.
I don't doubt that Minox **fixed focal length** lenses are good, but
you can be sure that a budget priced Minox **zoom** p+s will not
perform to anything like the same standard.
Don't be fooled by the brand name.
TP
>
>I thought I was already everybody and this is just my way of acting out in my
>head while giving my fingers some exercise ;-).
Then you must be Mike Henley. Apparently he is me too.
;-)
TP
>
>I don't believe that Leica cares about bokeh at all, nor do any other
>manufacturers. If the lens is well designed the out-of-focus areas will
>look fine.
It's a good thing that you remind us from time to time just how
complete an idiot you are.
TP
>
>I have a bunch of the old metal lens hoods for the various Nikon lenses I own
>(those without built in hoods), and I sort of like the old round shapes. These
>newer variations do look strange.
Agreed; a triumph of fashion over function. I particularly like
rectangular lens hoods. I have a couple of old Pentax rectangulars
that I have converted to use on later lenses.
>Just never liked the manual focus feel of the autofocus lenses. The 80-200 was
>almost tolerable, but I doubt I would buy one. Anyway, I have been considering
>the 24 mm f2.8 AI and AIS with CRC, mostly on stopped down performance. The 24
>mm seems to suit my vision more than the 28 mm, but I might dismiss using
>either if I get an XPan.
The 24mm f/2.8 AIS is a gem, one of Nikon's best lenses. It has
excellent sharpness and a remarkable lack of distortion. One of my
favourite lenses ... I never got to like the AF-D version I replaced
it with.
>> The f/1.8 AIS is even worse than the f/1.4 in the bokeh department.
>> :-(
>
>I found the same thing with those I tried. I have tried several of the f1.8
>versions, and while the Series E was okay (may have been the sample), I still
>found the older F2.0 AI version to be much better. I recently found the really
>old metal hood for this, and flare is almost not an issue anymore.
The f/2 AI and the pre-AIS f/1.8 had tolerable bokeh - that's good for
a Nikkor!
>I was reading the book "Rangefinder" by Hicks & Schultz recently. They seem to
>be big on these various adapters, and the accessory finders. Still not sure if
>I will try that route.
Roger Hicks is a real character. he has a weekly column in "Amateur
Photographer" in which he airs his controversial views - it certainly
stimulates debate, if the letters pages are anything to go by.
I originally bought the Soviet "turret" finder so I could use
additional focal lengths on the Leica bodies. My Leica lenses don't
include 50mm and 135mm focal lengths, so I can take my Pentax 50mm and
135mm lenses and the turret finder and still have a light, very
portable outfit with 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm and 135mm focal lengths.
>77 mm is still a strange focal length. I don't know anyone who has one of
>these, so I have not yet seen any prints from one. I have seen quite a few
>images from the older 85 mm f1.4, and I think the Pentax is slightly notable
>in being a bit better than the similar Nikon. However, my favourite near that
>range is two versions ago Leica 90 mm f2.8 (M rangefinder version, not R).
The Pentax SMC-A* 85mm f/1.4 is a stunning lens, with a unique
combination of resolution, contrast and ultra-smooth bokeh. I think
it probably beats the Nikon and Contax (Zeiss) equivalents ... buyers
seem to agree, because this Pentax gem fetches very high prices.
I already have too many lenses in the 85mm-105mm range, but if I break
one I will probably replace it with the Pentax.
Collin Brendemuehl
Addtional perspectives on the Limited:
http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-...@pdml.net/msg185866.html
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti writes:
>
> > Leica lenses do have a 'family look' that is instantly
> > recognizable to those who are familiar with it.
>
> Odd that they are unable to pick out Leica shot from a group of shots
> taken with top lenses from several manufacturers, then. I even have to
> make notes on which lens I used myself, otherwise I can't recognize the
> Leica shots later.
>
> > If you were to lay out slides on a light table taken
> > with the range of 1970's Leicaflex lenses and Nikkor
> > lenses of the same era, it would be easy to tell
> > them apart, and to see the similarity among the Leicaflex lenses.
>
> I'll believe that when I see it.
The Nikkors of that era were less even in their appearance. One would
be great, the next, a dog. Compare the 105 f2,5 to the 50 f/1,4 from
about 1973 or so, and you'll see what I mean. The 105 is great; the 50
is a dog.
On the other hand, both the 50mm Summilux and 90mm Elmarit/Summicron
from that era are equally superb and notably better than the Nikkors.
How do I know? I used them both. I used the 20mm Nikkor until I got my
21mm Super Angulon. I used the 50mm 1,4 and 2,0 Nikkor until I got my
50mm Summilux. I used the 200 and 300mm Nikkor until I got my 250mm
Telyt. Could I see the differences? Of course!
brian
> Dallas writes:
>
>
> An ideal lens
> preserves 100% of contrast no matter how small the distance (infinite
> resolution).
Even a lens with a Strehl ratio of 1.0 will still degraded by
diffraction, which means that finer details will have a lower contrast
in the image than coarser ones.
Dallas
> Dallas wrote:
?
As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that imposed economic
sanctions on SA that ultimately saw the crippling of the Nationalist
Regime and the end of apartheid. But seeing as you are obviously an expert
on the history of apartheid I guess you already knew that, didn't you?
Dallas
> Gosh, it's a shame you brought that to everyone's attention now,
> isn't it? And I, for one, will enjoy the traffic increase to my site. It's
> chock full of my images, right alongside the specs of the equipment used to
> get them. How people feel about the images is, of course, entirely up to
> them. I've said it before, the site is listed in my sig to give everyone
> the chance to judge for themselves. I have nothing to hide.
>
> Shame that isn't contagious.
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> - Al.
LOL!
Good post, Al!
brian
> TP writes:
>
> > Unfortunately that simply isn't true. For example, many top-end
> > Nikkors are optimised for sharpness (MTF) at the expense of other
> > characteristics such as a smooth rendition of out of focus elements of
> > the shot (bokeh).
>
> I don't see any difference. They are all good lenses.
>
> > Leica lenses are also optimised for sharpness, but *not* at the
> > expense of bokeh.
>
> I don't believe that Leica cares about bokeh at all, nor do any other
> manufacturers. If the lens is well designed the out-of-focus areas will
> look fine.
If its universally true that manufacturers don't care about bokeh,
then how do you explain variable-bokeh lenses like the DC Nikkors?
Also, I do know that Leica does care about bokeh because I once saw a
set of transverse aberration plots for one of their lenses: the
undercorrected spherical aberration was clearly evident and
unexplainable unless the intent was to achieve good bokeh.
Its true that many lenses have been designed without a thought given
to bokeh. In some cases this leads to bad bokeh, but not always. For
example, the old Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 macro lens has
extraordinarily good bokeh. However, when I asked the lens designer
how he set up a merit function to accomplish this he replied that he
didn't know what bokeh was!
A few years ago I was designing some UV-Visible macro lenses and
noticed that some of them had exceptionally good bokeh characteristics
even though I had made no overt attempt to achieve this. So its
entirely possible that some lenses like the 90/2.5 have great bokeh
*by accident*.
Jeremy
"brian" <brian...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c459ba.04061...@posting.google.com...
> >
> Also, I do know that Leica does care about bokeh because I once saw a
> set of transverse aberration plots for one of their lenses: the
> undercorrected spherical aberration was clearly evident and
> unexplainable unless the intent was to achieve good bokeh.
>
Erwin Puts, in his brochures on the Leica web site, claims that Leica does
not design to get a specific bokeh quality, they rather build the best lens
they can and let the bokeh manifest itself without engineering manipulation.
Zeiss lenses are reputed to be specifically designed with bokeh in mind.
The advertising brochure for the Contax 645 cameras and lenses claims that
Zeiss lenses are reputed to have the world's best bokeh, so Zeiss apparently
desires to maintain that impression in the minds of buyers.
At least one critic has praised the M42 Takumar series of normal lenses from
Asahi (now Pentax) as having bokeh quite similar to the Zeiss Planar designs
with which they were competing (in the 60s and 70s).
As for the "Leica Look," an interesting argument is made that one can take
photographs with that "Leica Glow" by using any number of different lenses.
(Not so great news tor Leicaphiles. The gist of the article is,
essentially, "Stop fretting over your lenses and go out and shoot some
pictures.") The article and the photos can be seen at the following link:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml
Lots of photos there with the Leica Look. Most of 'em were not taken by
Leica lenses!
Chris Loffredo
> Chris Loffredo said:
>
>
>>Dallas wrote:
>
>
> ?
>
> As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that imposed economic
> sanctions on SA that ultimately saw the crippling of the Nationalist
> Regime and the end of apartheid. But seeing as you are obviously an expert
> on the history of apartheid I guess you already knew that, didn't you?
>
The US congress (parliament) voted for anti-apartheid legislation.
Reagan vetoed it. Congress passed it again, overriding the veto.
I don't see any personal merit of Reagan in this.
However, I am glad to see that apparently wasn't your meaning.
m...@privacy.net
Chris Loffredo
> Chris Loffredo said:
>
>
>>Dallas wrote:
>
>
> ?
>
> As I recall, it was the Reagan administration that imposed economic
> sanctions on SA that ultimately saw the crippling of the Nationalist
> Regime and the end of apartheid. But seeing as you are obviously an expert
> on the history of apartheid I guess you already knew that, didn't you?
>
The US congress (parliament) voted for anti-apartheid legislation.
Reagan vetoed it. Congress passed it again, overriding his veto.
I don't see any personal merit of Reagan in this.
However, I am glad to see that apparently that wasn't your meaning.
Chris
________________________________
Dedicated to the 30,000 Nicaraguans who were murdered by contras death
squads, because they wanted to make the World a better place.
Dallas
Are you denying that you are not Mike Henley? His trolling style does seem
a bit refined to be you, but seeing as he posts from Google, with
questions most pertinent to your claimed area of "expertise", coupled with
your responses, it seems as if he has been designed to make you seem
useful (which we all know you are not).
IF you want to be useful, simply apologise for your past behaviour and we
can all move on. Until you do, many of us will continue to keep you in the
cabbage patch, with the other vegetables.
Dallas
> Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>I have not tried the new 45 mm f2.8.
>
> Nice bokeh, sharp. Poor resistance to flare unless used with the
> silly "coolie hat"lens hood.
And he calls *me* racist.
Dallas
> I am not going to get into a political debate here but I will say that I miss
> Ronald Reagan both as a man and as a president - he served this country well.
> His successors, to put it kindly, have seemed lackluster in comparison. I
> belong to no party as noone would want me at their party ;-) and I don't like
> group mentalities. Which begs the question why am I on usenet, but that's a
> question for greater minds than mine... ;-)
Pay no heed, Lewis. Polson will use any opportunity to try and paste me. I
find it quite hysterical whenever he tries because he is usually so far
off the mark that he ends up pasting himself!
Great fun to watch!
Dallas
> Dallas writes:
>
>> Could you repeat that? I could have sworn I read a lot of bull, but maybe
>> it was just the low contrast setting on my 1280x1024 resolution monitor
>> that screwed up the type?
>
> Resolution is nothing more than the degree of contrast that is preserved
> between details separated by a given distance. The greater the contrast
> and the smaller the distance, the higher the resolution. An ideal lens
> preserves 100% of contrast no matter how small the distance (infinite
> resolution).
You are wrong (again!).
Think resolution, think resolving. Specifically detail. Think contrast,
think difference. Specifically colour.
They are two totally different things, mate. I guess you aren't the
"intellectual" after all.
Dallas
> sabin...@aol.com (Sabineellen) wrote:
>
>>What ones do you know of?
>
> Plenty.
>
> If you do your research thoroughly, you will be able to find them too.
In other words, you can't name a single one. Why am I not surprised?
Dallas
>>http://tinyurl.com/3c3ho
>>
>>Not sure i understand pre-ASPH though.
>
>
> Can't you read? I wrote "zoom p+s". I have left it in the quoted
> text above, so you can check.
Oh Gawd! Now he's trying to disagree with himself to throw the hounds off
the scent! LOL!
Chris Loffredo
> On the other hand, both the 50mm Summilux and 90mm Elmarit/Summicron
> from that era are equally superb and notably better than the Nikkors.
> How do I know? I used them both. I used the 20mm Nikkor until I got my
> 21mm Super Angulon. I used the 50mm 1,4 and 2,0 Nikkor until I got my
> 50mm Summilux. I used the 200 and 300mm Nikkor until I got my 250mm
> Telyt. Could I see the differences? Of course!
If you're talking about the Nikkor 200mm pre-AI (also called large
version), it is a completely different lens from the later AI (aka
compact) 200mm. The AI 200mm is excellent, just a tad behind the 180mm
ED and the Zeiss 200mm f/4.0. The older one was good but not great.
Also, the classic 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor isn't anything special.
Generally, I find that Leica & Zeiss wide-angles have the real advantage.
Chris
Mxsmanic
> If its universally true that manufacturers don't care about bokeh,
> then how do you explain variable-bokeh lenses like the DC Nikkors?
It's not universally true.
> So its
> entirely possible that some lenses like the 90/2.5 have great bokeh
> *by accident*.
I wonder why photographers would care about the out-of-focus areas more
than the in-focus areas.
Mxsmanic
> Even a lens with a Strehl ratio of 1.0 will still degraded by
> diffraction, which means that finer details will have a lower contrast
> in the image than coarser ones.
Okay. So?
William Graham
to know just how the lens designers go about designing good bokeh into a
lens. - I mean, it's not exactly a well defined optical engineering
parameter. What, exactly do they do to get it? When the department chief
says, "OK guys, give this one good bokeh." What do the "guys" do when they
go back to their drawing boards? Is it curvature of the glass?, The
material, or type of glass? The coatings? the design of the apeture
mechanism? Or what? - Or, perhaps they just forget it, and if the final
product doesn't have good bokeh, they scrap it and start over........
William Graham
a well defined optical parameter.....Do you suppose that there is some
placebo effect involved? - That perhaps there is no such thing as bokeh at
all? Or, perhaps, "Good bokeh is in the eye of the beholder."
William Graham
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:a00yc.20420$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Frank Pittel
: Frank Pittel wrote:
: > Al Denelsbeck <ne...@wadingin.net> wrote:
: > : mnhe...@msn.com (Mike Henley) wrote in
: > : news:6005702b.04060...@posting.google.com:
: >
: > : > I recall reading a while ago that leica images have that "leica look",
: > : > or maybe it was that some other camera had that "leica look" to its
: > : > images, but i can't remember where i read that.
: > : >
: > : > what's that?
: >
: >
: > : 1) The look a camera salesperson gets on his face when he spots a
: > : customer too eager to impress people with money;
: >
: > : 2) An imaginary quality to an image that is conjured up when the
: > : proud owner of an expensive camera realizes he still doesn't know jack
: > : about photography;
: >
: > : 3) The look any sensible person gets on their face when they see a
: > : 50mm lens that the manufacturer seriously expects people to pay over a
: > : thousand dollars for - generally a mix between incredulity and sadness or
: > : fear over where Mankind is headed.
: >
: > : Glad to be of help!
: >
: >
: > I always thought the leica look was the person with a leica hanging around his
: > neck and no idea of how to use it.
: No, that's digital....
:-)
--
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
f...@deepthought.com
William Graham
> brian writes:
>
> > If its universally true that manufacturers don't care about bokeh,
> > then how do you explain variable-bokeh lenses like the DC Nikkors?
>
> It's not universally true.
>
> > So its
> > entirely possible that some lenses like the 90/2.5 have great bokeh
> > *by accident*.
>
> I wonder why photographers would care about the out-of-focus areas more
> than the in-focus areas.
>
poppies, then you are going to have out-of-focus poppies in the background
and foreground. If you take their picture in a quarry, you are likely to
have out-of-focus dirt and rocks in the background and foreground. In either
case, the out of focus areas will affect the final result, and people who
see that result are likely to prefer one picture over the other. But is
their preference guided by the bokeh, or by the difference between poppies
and rocks? Again, is bokeh a placebo effect?
brian
> brian writes:
>
> > Even a lens with a Strehl ratio of 1.0 will still degraded by
> > diffraction, which means that finer details will have a lower contrast
> > in the image than coarser ones.
>
> Okay. So?
So? So, an ideal lens does not produce 100% contrast except in the
trivial case of zero spatial frequency.
brian
> brian writes:
>
> > If its universally true that manufacturers don't care about bokeh,
> > then how do you explain variable-bokeh lenses like the DC Nikkors?
>
> It's not universally true.
Glad I've changed your mind! I don't think anyone has ever done that
for you before.
>
> > So its
> > entirely possible that some lenses like the 90/2.5 have great bokeh
> > *by accident*.
>
> I wonder why photographers would care about the out-of-focus areas more
> than the in-focus areas.
I don't know any who do. Many, including myself, would prefer to have
*both* first rate sharpness and great bokeh. It is possible to
achieve, and it does make a difference.
Matt Clara
"Lewis Lang" <cont...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040609200031...@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: What's the "leica look"?
> >From: TP t...@nospam.net
> >Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 6:33 PM
> >Message-id: <hs3fc0pcdll41489b...@4ax.com>
> >
> >Chris Loffredo <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>Dallas wrote:
> >>
> >>--
> >>R.I.P. Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2004
> >>You helped make the world a better place.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Maybe Dallas means that Reagan supported undemocratic, authoritarian
> >and repressive regimes all over the world, not just in South Africa.
> >
> >And the Iran Contra affair was just another shady business deal that
> >any self-respecting racist South African could relate to, and admire.
> >
> >
>
> I am not going to get into a political debate here but I will say that I
miss
> Ronald Reagan both as a man and as a president - he served this country
well.
> His successors, to put it kindly, have seemed lackluster in comparison. I
> belong to no party as noone would want me at their party ;-) and I don't
like
> group mentalities. Which begs the question why am I on usenet, but that's
a
> question for greater minds than mine... ;-)
>
He was a schill, just like Bush Jr., with too few brains cells to sit in the
oval office.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Michael Scarpitti
> Michael Scarpitti wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, both the 50mm Summilux and 90mm Elmarit/Summicron
> > from that era are equally superb and notably better than the Nikkors.
> > How do I know? I used them both. I used the 20mm Nikkor until I got my
> > 21mm Super Angulon. I used the 50mm 1,4 and 2,0 Nikkor until I got my
> > 50mm Summilux. I used the 200 and 300mm Nikkor until I got my 250mm
> > Telyt. Could I see the differences? Of course!
>
> If you're talking about the Nikkor 200mm pre-AI (also called large
> version), it is a completely different lens from the later AI (aka
> compact) 200mm.
This one:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/6070nikkor/telephoto/200mm.htm
> The AI 200mm is excellent, just a tad behind the 180mm
> ED and the Zeiss 200mm f/4.0. The older one was good but not great.
> Also, the classic 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor isn't anything special.
Leica introduced a revised 250mm in about 1980, as both companies are
always trying to improve their products. The 250mm f/4 Telyt I bought
in 1971 was better (by far) than the Nikkor refrenced above. I would
easily assume that the second version improves upon the first, and
maintains superiority over the revised Nikkor.
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/250R40.HTM
Lewis Lang
>Date: Thu, Jun 10, 2004 11:19 AM
>Message-id: <3c459ba.04061...@posting.google.com>
Which UV-visible macro lenses (focal length/brand) did you design and which of
them in particular had "exceptionally good bokeh characteristics"?
TIA
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***