Nikkor 35/2.5 LTM Test shot

[Todd.Hanz]

Leica_Magus,
I re-read your initial comments, it still seems like you are trying to "pick a fight". It's all in the delivery, if I mis-understood your intentions then I apologize for the troll reference.

peace out,
Todd

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[raid]

it isn't what's said.
it's HOW it's said.

joe

Joe: Maybe this kind of negative thread can be avoided.
I said nothing about any personal remark. Instead, I comment on the lenses.

 

[back alley]

magus,
i did not say you insulted anyone.
i said you were rude.
i think there is a difference.

as far as rights are concerned, perhaps on a local street corner you have the right to say what you will in any manner, but on this forum that is not the case.
this is not a democracy but a private forum where the owner has asked me to moderate.
please keep that in mind.

as to your opinions...they are welcomed here as long as they are delivered in a respectful manner and not in such a way that causes problems.
it's very simple really.

i thank you for your cooperation.
joe

 

[sf]

Ericzhu, I see that the lens is slightly low contrast. I also see that some of the images show higher general contrast than others, and that one of them shows strong contrast in one area and low in another area. Hard to tell if that is the lighting, developing, or the lens.

 

[NIKON KIU]

I invite every single person here interested in this debate to go back to every single post of mine and determine whether I have ever been rude...

Again in good faith,

Although I should not prolong this any further...I DID go back and read some of your posts:

This is not surprising, since Japanese optics are involved, especially Nikon - masters of overall mediocrity and sleight of hand, in the sense that for every dozen ashtrays they produce a master lens (clever, isn't it?).


If you have the Elmarit and the Elmars, you definitely do not need a Nikon. Even if you had no lenses, you would not need a Nikon. Those things are lifeless compared
to the Leitz optics!

These types of things can be subjective sometimes, but at least in your tests I found the Nikon to be almost the least appealing one (that I61 lens shot itself in the foot every time!) - flat and with no particular virtues to speak of. Something like a photocopy, which is ironic because Nikonites call Canon "the photocopier company", and yet Canon optics in your tests are superior (again, to my eye).

true is that I have no experience of rangefinder Nikkors, only many of the SLR ones

So, Leica -Magus...your whole judgment of Nikkors being no good and Leitz being supurb is looking at Raids' and other members comparison shots?

I rest my case,
Kiu

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[raid]

Take it easy guys. No need for name calling or anything similar here. If you have to, send your "stuff" via pm but do not make it so unpleasant here.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[Palaeoboy]

"This is not surprising, since Japanese optics are involved, especially Nikon - masters of overall mediocrity and sleight of hand, in the sense that for every dozen ashtrays they produce a master lens (clever, isn't it?)."

In your first statment you made no reference that you found the 85mm f1.4D Nikkor a good lens you were making a generalized statement about Japanese lenses and a specific slight at Nikons lenses. Its only later that you contradict this stance and admit that Nikon can and does make some good lenses. If your experience with Nikkor lenses is so great why do you keep referring to them as K-Mount? Thats the Pentax mount not Nikons. If you dont even know that simple fact your experience cant be that great and now in your later posts you admit you have never once used a Nikon rangefinder lens. For the record also this is the Rangerfinder forum which is divided up into catagories to make it easier for find and post questions. The catagories do overlap. Its not a Leica only forum.

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[back alley]

and so the end is near...