Better than I am

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not exactly sure how many Leica-fit lenses I have: at least 1x15, 2x21, 1x28, 3x35, 5x50, 1x75, 3x90.

And they are ALL capable of taking better pictures than I can aspire to.

OK, so the best (especially the 75/2 Summicron) are unutterably gorgeous. But even the worst (50/2 Jupiter, 50/1.2 Canon) are still pretty damn' good.

So why do we all worry so much about our lenses? Once we're above the 'quality plateau', our ability matters a lot more than the glass. But oh, that 75/2...

Cheers,

Roger (take a look at www.rogerandfrances.com for some examples)

 

[back alley]

i'm usually happy with what i have for lenses, quality wise.
sadly i admit that my gear is usually of a higher caliber that my pics.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Dear Roger,

Have you ever been disappointed in having a lens that was too good? Versus having one that was too poor?

Wayne

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Wayne,

Well, um, I guess we can end ther thread right here! The definitive answer -- thanks!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Dave Chad]

Roger,
I believe the 75/2 is what dreams are made of!

 

[Nikon Bob]

My ability is so low that I cannot recall being extremely disappointed with any lens that I have used no matter the maker. I do recall some lenses that I was extremely pleased with the results they gave. Far too much stomach acid is produced agonizing over minute differences in lens performance especially within the same maker. Still the agony might be ecstacy for some. Now, agonizing over which focal length to get is something else again.

Bob

 

[captainslack]

My ability is so low that I cannot recall being extremely disappointed with any lens that I have used no matter the maker

Buy Quantaray. You'll change that opinion!

 

[cp_ste.croix]

So my gear aspirations won't make me a better photographer? (plugs ears) imnotlisteningimnotlisteningimnotlisteningimnotlisteningimnotlistening

 

[bmattock]

Buy Quantaray. You'll change that opinion!

Hoo, ain't that the truth!

I was fascinated by a thread on PN recently - some fella had a fixed-lens rangefinder with a lens that was so bad, you could see the damage with the naked eye. Scratches, fungus, even dirt. And was never that hot to begin with.

Then he posted some photos he took with it. Looked fine - given yes, they were reduced for the web, yes, photoshop levels, etc. Still, quite acceptable for web posting.

So, the question, it would seem to me, would be what purpose a person intends to put the lens to.

I have a bunch of those nasty old Paxettes, because I'm a bit of a thickie (you've seen 'em), and I can see that they are not 'all that' when I scan the negs. Plainly, there is a difference, even to my eyes.

Through the use of various adapters, I've manage to put a couple of the Paxette lenses on an M42 SLR - still have the problem. So it *is* the Paxette Steinheil & Schneider lenses, sadly. Soft. Not sharp. Low contrast.

On the other hand, my Canon LTM 50mm f1.8 and f1.4 - I can't tell the difference at all. Unless I open the 1.4 all the way up and note the difference in DOF. Unless I keep track of my shots, I could easily believe either one made it. And both are quite good.

The recent subjective tests I did with a bunch of old M42 prime 50mm lenses was interesting to me. Closer than I would have thought - some surprises, but still, some clear winners - mostly the Pentaxes. I was actually cheering on the German lenses, but no, I could see the Pentaxes were better in all measurable ways.

Areas where it might make a difference to scrape out the last bit of performance from a lens - really large enlargements. Other than that...hmmm.

Yes, Roger is right - most of my 'good' lenses are better than I am, so is there a point to continuing to look for the magic lens?

Well, the pursuit is fun. And when a really razor-sharp subject in a 35mm frame is scanned into my computer, it makes me kinda tingly inside.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Theo-Prof]

This may be going against the grain (no pun intended) in a forum devoted to rangefinder cameras, but I experienced the largest jump in photo quality when I started using a tripod every chance I could. I just recently got into rangefinders so I would have a camera that was easy to shoot hand-held when I could not readily use a tripod.

When I started using a tripod consistently I noticed that some of my lenses were noticeably better than others (all the primes were better than any zoom I had used). I had eliminated one factor keeping me from getting sharp photos (camera shake) only to discover that some of my lenses were keeping me from getting the best quality I could. Therefore, my desire to have sharp, high quality lenses arises from the desire to remove as many factors as possible that might keep me from recording that once in a lifetime image.

Kevin

 

[stephen_lumsden]

I think thats why I (and probably most other FSU camera user) like using old FSU stuff. Sure it is very good and will always be more than enough, image wise for me. But, hey its cheap, and I would be really cheesed off, if I forked out a couple of thousand on a Leica kit just to produce the same stuff..

 

[GeneW]

I had an email exchange with Mike Johnston about this very subject and we both agreed that, for those who scan, Photoshop offers so many corrective abilities, it would be difficult to distinguish between superb lenses and lenses that are simply very good.

Roger, I agree. The lenses on all my cams are better than I am a photographer. I long ago stopped blaming the equipment 😀

Gene

 

[Roger Hicks]

Bill: I think you're right. Besides, there are those occasions like Romania (see attached) where you appreciate serious 4x4. Though quite honestly my Lorus quartz beats my old Seamaster 30.

And 'pleasure in use' is worth as much to me as 'qualityb of results'.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[back alley]

that being said, i love your cup shot gene!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Kevin, spot on about the tripods!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

Isn't this a bit like all the other "overengineering" we do in our lives? I wear an Omega Seamaster, good to 120m but I swim like a breeze block. I use a Mont Blanc but I have never written a world-class poem. I drive a 4x4 but I've never crossed the Sahara. Point is, 99.999% of the time we use these things within their performance capabilities. What's the point in having a car capable of 180mph when the speed limit is 70? Because at 70 it is performing well within it's limits. It is not being stretched. It will therefore do the mundane stuff better than something that is designed only to do the mundane stuff.

Regards,

Bill

When photographing in West Bottoms, Kansas City - I carried a Yashica GSN. Fine lens, but more importantly - I could swing that sucker like a pro and didn't care if I had to chuck it at someone and run the other way.

Sometimes, carrying a Timex when it is most appropriate will save your snarglies. But other than that, I agree with you.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[taffer]

I'm not exactly sure how many Leica-fit lenses I have: at least 1x15, 2x21, 1x28, 3x35, 5x50, 1x75, 3x90.

And they are ALL capable of taking better pictures than I can aspire to.

OK, so the best (especially the 75/2 Summicron) are unutterably gorgeous. But even the worst (50/2 Jupiter, 50/1.2 Canon) are still pretty damn' good.

So why do we all worry so much about our lenses? Once we're above the 'quality plateau', our ability matters a lot more than the glass.

Roger, you seem to have read my mind !

But oh, that 75/2...

But then... here you've read my mind as well ! 😀

Remember, a Suzuki Samurai will bring you through mountain roads perfectly well, but then one looks at the VW Touareg and...

Albest,

Oscar

 

[Nikon Bob]

Buy Quantaray. You'll change that
opinion!

They would have to pretty bad to be worse than a 1930's uncoated Elmar and the Elmar still pleases me. I guess you can still take modern technology and really screw it up.

Bob

 

[taffer]

Sometimes it amazes me the amount of damage a lens can take and still produce nice pics, plus there's really no 'minimum requirement' for creativity, as those wonderful pics taken with Lubitels, Holgas, Lensbabies, etc prove 🙂

 

[Roman]

Roger, you seem to have read my mind !



But then... here you've read my mind as well ! 😀

Remember, a Suzuki Samurai will bring you through mountain roads perfectly well, but then one looks at the VW Touareg and...

Albest,

Oscar

Pretty bad argument, IMHO - that ugly poseur-4x4 Touareg looks just like a blown-up Passat Variant - I'd take a beat-up vintage Lancruiser or LandRover over the Touareg every day (of course, I don't have the money for neither, and we're getting off-topic here).

Roman