ferider
Veteran
Thanks for sharing the photos, Bill.
I like Katie. But she looks like she has ways to grow, still
Big dogs are great.
Roland.
I like Katie. But she looks like she has ways to grow, still
Big dogs are great.Roland.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Je ne sais quoi is just like Menage a trois, it even rhymes.
ferider
Veteran
To give Alex a little more time:
Jaap's excellent picture also shows another fact, easier to measure: for some focal length/max. aperture combinations, Leitz has only few competitors:
24/2.8 Elmarit: Zeiss Biogon (25)
28/2 Summicron: Voigtlander (28/1.9)
35/1.4 Summilux: some "classic" LTM competitors, probably more expensive used than the Leitz lens new; the 42mm/1.4 Nokton is really a different lens, IMO. And the CV 35/1.2 is a different beast alltogether due to size.
50/1.0: no competitor
75/1.4: no competitor
75/2: no competitor
90/2: classic 85mm LTM lenses; and the ZM 85/2; I have yet to meet somebody who uses the ZM lens (price and rarity?).
135/3.4: classic 135/3.5 LTM lenses
135/2.8 googled: no competitor
Nothing against CV lenses, I have 4 and one day will get the 35 Nokton, too. But Leitz does provide the largest spectrum of fast portrait lenses. And one of the key applications of Leicas, historically, is portraits.
Roland.
Jaap's excellent picture also shows another fact, easier to measure: for some focal length/max. aperture combinations, Leitz has only few competitors:
24/2.8 Elmarit: Zeiss Biogon (25)
28/2 Summicron: Voigtlander (28/1.9)
35/1.4 Summilux: some "classic" LTM competitors, probably more expensive used than the Leitz lens new; the 42mm/1.4 Nokton is really a different lens, IMO. And the CV 35/1.2 is a different beast alltogether due to size.
50/1.0: no competitor
75/1.4: no competitor
75/2: no competitor
90/2: classic 85mm LTM lenses; and the ZM 85/2; I have yet to meet somebody who uses the ZM lens (price and rarity?).
135/3.4: classic 135/3.5 LTM lenses
135/2.8 googled: no competitor
Nothing against CV lenses, I have 4 and one day will get the 35 Nokton, too. But Leitz does provide the largest spectrum of fast portrait lenses. And one of the key applications of Leicas, historically, is portraits.
Roland.
Last edited:
shenkerian
Established
Roland, you're correct within the realm of 35mm rangefinders. But it sounds like Bill is questioning Leica's image quality compared to other 35mm systems, and SLRs have an impressive stable of fast glass, especially from Canon. I've seen amazing images shot with the 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, and 135 f/2.0L. And I believe the 24 f/1.4L has no equivalent.
ferider
Veteran
I agree completely. You have to admit, though, that Jaap's 75/1.4 is a cool lens ...
Roland.
Roland.
shenkerian
Established
ferider said:
Oh absolutely. I'd actually meant to mention that -- Jaap, that image has a pop that I didn't think an on-screen image could convey. Congratulations.
I was going to make a crack about the banding, but the quality of the image simply overpowers it.
jonasv
has no mustache
rover said:
Rover... Don't kill me - I try to keep my gallery uploads mostly limited to rangefinder pictures - but that particular one (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=52850&cpage=3&limit=last14#poststart) was a Nikkor 85/2. Sorry!
(In defense of Leica, I do think the foreground out-of-focus areas are not that nice in this picture. Really like that 85/2 for it's petite size, good handling and sharpness even at f/2 - but never been tremendously impressed with the out-of-focus renderings. Lugging around the slower, bigger and longer 105/2.5 for that reason alone seems a bit silly though.)
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
jonasv said:
Jonas,
a great picture, of course.
Did you use an SLR or RF 85/2 ?
Roland.
jonasv
has no mustache
ferider said:
Thanks Roland... It was an SLR I'm afraid.
I know, I know, I'm sorry!
I am begining to understand that, despite 50 years' experience, this is a new and fascinating area of photography for me. My dad was a working-class felllow, and I don't think I ever heard him speak the word "Leica." He took terrific photos with used entry-level pro equipment, and had the good sense to blame himself, not his equipment, when photos didn't look right.
At that time, in my world, a 35mm SLR was the ultimate camera to strive for, and RF cameras were something to be used until one could afford a SLR.
I am looking forward to learning more about this parallel universe of photography. Thanks again to all.
Bill Rogers
At that time, in my world, a 35mm SLR was the ultimate camera to strive for, and RF cameras were something to be used until one could afford a SLR.
I am looking forward to learning more about this parallel universe of photography. Thanks again to all.
Bill Rogers
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
I wasn't going to seek you out, I understand that you are very busy. But I am watching as I know this will be good.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Nachkebia
Well-known
Well, I don`t knowwwwww...... I think difference between tri-x and XP2 is much much much much much much bigger! not to mention M8 digital file to Delta 100 print!!! there is definetly difference in overall look, generaly I find rangefinder lenses (leica and zeiss) have softer look, when I say soft I don`t mean not sharp, just smoother, nikon has rough look! I like both! but difference between zeiss and leica is very very very very very very very little!
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Nachkebia
Well-known
Delta 100 is great here is proof (my friend) www.juks.ru
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request