jfujita
Established
Interesting factoid: the Summicron at three times "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]no distortion, visible or otherwise." should give you... no distortion?
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
"I bought a $400 Cosina 21mm f/4 (Voigtländer) for use on my Nikon SP rangefinder camera. The lens works magnificently."
"I suspect the optics of other third-party lenses are probably fine, and I'll let you know as I get to testing them."
In the review of the 28 Elmarit, he says the Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 (G mount) is the same performance.
That doesn't sound like 'pissing all over' to me.
The point of that link is about the relative costs of digital bodies and the lenses, and he's saying why not buy Leica glass if you are buying a $6K digital body.
"I suspect the optics of other third-party lenses are probably fine, and I'll let you know as I get to testing them."
In the review of the 28 Elmarit, he says the Carl Zeiss 28/2.8 (G mount) is the same performance.
That doesn't sound like 'pissing all over' to me.
The point of that link is about the relative costs of digital bodies and the lenses, and he's saying why not buy Leica glass if you are buying a $6K digital body.
Last edited by a moderator:
cmogi10
Bodhisattva
Well...they are cheap, isn't that one of the attractions? 
sepiareverb
genius and moron
It does make sense- why spend $6K on a body that will be worth $2K in two years, and then scrimp and save by putting a $1200 lens on it instead of going for the better lens? I go for the $2K body and put the rest into the best glass I can- for both film & the digital body. But, as I've said before, I'm a moron.
Sjixxxy
Well-known
Not sure, but from the point of view of someone who is trying to think up ways to get people to go tsubscribe to o his own photoblog without resorting to just spamming forums, I kind of envy his position where anything he writes ultimetly gets posted all over the internet by someone else. I'd love to get my eyes on the reports for his analytics & adsense accounts.
That's where he's got (most of) us snookered.
lemalk
Rebel Without Applause
I don't like the guy's writing style or his photographs. And it turns out, we both live in the same city.
That being said, I was surprised to see him give some space to an RF lens and to not just resort to the "rangefinders? Who uses them when we have SLRs now" argument.
As far as using an "inferior" third party lens - I can't easily swing a couple grand on a Leica lens to use on my M8 (the only digital RF in production).
From what I've seen the Voigtlanders deliver about 80-90% of the quality of the Leica lenses. And, yes, I know they're more contrasty and the "look" of the images is different - but that's less of an issue with post-processing, right?
Of course, I'd love to splurge on a few Leica lenses (new or used).
That being said, I was surprised to see him give some space to an RF lens and to not just resort to the "rangefinders? Who uses them when we have SLRs now" argument.
As far as using an "inferior" third party lens - I can't easily swing a couple grand on a Leica lens to use on my M8 (the only digital RF in production).
From what I've seen the Voigtlanders deliver about 80-90% of the quality of the Leica lenses. And, yes, I know they're more contrasty and the "look" of the images is different - but that's less of an issue with post-processing, right?
Of course, I'd love to splurge on a few Leica lenses (new or used).
What makes no sense is this:
"The D3X is the world's best DSLR at any price...., but the D3X isn't worth $8,000 to me. I can't throw money away like this, but if you have the $8,000, the D3X is extraordinary. All I want to afford for now is Leica, which is a give-away by comparison."
Now, exactly how is a D3x too much (at $8K) for the best DSLR, but a $6200 M8 (with considerably less performance, not full frame, not 24 mp, etc, etc.) is a give-away by comparison? Especially if you buy a few Leica lenses, compared to the cost of Nikon glass?
aizan
Veteran
i think he means the m7 and mp are a good deal. he said the m8.2 is "a transitional half-frame digital product".
i don't see why the d3x should cost so much more than a d3, either. in any case, i expect the price to come down soon enough. the d700 is already $500 less.
i don't see why the d3x should cost so much more than a d3, either. in any case, i expect the price to come down soon enough. the d700 is already $500 less.
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
beat me to it aizan.
OK, I guess I missed that reference.
This guy is a tool. Sure, drool all over the Leica glass (the 2,8/28 is a good lens) but c'mon... He pisses all over Zeiss and VC lenses in the same breath!
I'll keep my Zeiss glass - thanks anyway Ken.
Heh heh.
You'll enjoy this quote:
"If I had a Leica, I'd want a Leica M7. I'd probably get a Zeiss 21mm f/4.5 and either a Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 since according to Zeiss' data these have particularly no distortion and exemplary performance. I'd also look at the Voigtländer 35mm f/1.2 as well as probably get a Voigtländer 12mm or 15mm, too."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/summarit-m.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
I'm glad he likes the lens. I wouldn't mind having one myself, though I'm fairly happy with my 28mm Summicron, which doesn't block the finder nearly as much as KR suggests. Actually he gave it pretty much of a rave review; though I wonder why he need to throw in an occasional barb:
"Elmarit" is a meaningless and redundant marketing word (trademark) which means nothing more than "f/2.8."
Well, Ken, if it means f/2.8, then it can't really be meaningless, can it? It means f/2.8. And how is it redundant?
"Elmarit" is a meaningless and redundant marketing word (trademark) which means nothing more than "f/2.8."
Well, Ken, if it means f/2.8, then it can't really be meaningless, can it? It means f/2.8. And how is it redundant?