Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,932   Posts: 1,556,996   Online: 1128
      
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 97
  1. #61
    artonpaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    135
    The comment about newer Zeiss lenses being better than older Leica lenses is true. I've had some older Leica lenses that were not good performers in the way we usually think of those lenses. There are those that say that the introduction of Nikon lenses to the western market made the people at Ernst Leitz sit up and take heed. It was competitive pride that spurred them on.

    Then there are those that say part of the ''Leica look'' is created by the fact that the lens is off center to the film gate. If you have a RF Leica, and open the back, or remove the lens if the back doesn't open, you'll see the lens is off center to the frame. Whether this truly makes a noticeable difference is anybody's guess.

    But the reason for getting a Leica RF was always the feel of the camera, the great parallax correction, and the mystique of the lenses.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by artonpaper View Post
    The comment about newer Zeiss lenses being better than older Leica lenses is true. I've had some older Leica lenses that were not good performers in the way we usually think of those lenses. There are those that say that the introduction of Nikon lenses to the western market made the people at Ernst Leitz sit up and take heed. It was competitive pride that spurred them on.

    Then there are those that say part of the ''Leica look'' is created by the fact that the lens is off center to the film gate. If you have a RF Leica, and open the back, or remove the lens if the back doesn't open, you'll see the lens is off center to the frame. Whether this truly makes a noticeable difference is anybody's guess.

    But the reason for getting a Leica RF was always the feel of the camera, the great parallax correction, and the mystique of the lenses.
    The Off-Center theory is interesting but this implies that all my lenses will behave differently if I use them on a Bessa, for example...

    I've got one S3 and the 3.5cm f2.5 on it is superb. I can't believe how much detail my negatives show. The Nikkors are truly fine lenses.

  3. #63
    daleeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,005
    Images
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by daleeman View Post
    Making book here, anyone want in on this action? We are at 5 of 7 pages. Even money on making all 7 pages, 2 to 1 on going a full 15 pages, 8 to 1 on 30 pages of discussion.

    One must put up an a Leica M Camera Body, (M2 or newer). Think of it you could win 8, count them 8 Leica M bodies if it goes 30 pages of discussion. Why we could give the OP-ster a free body so he could afford a lens.
    House wins on Even Money on 7 pages. Place your bets, place your bets on 2 to 1 odds for a full 15 pages, or go for broke on 8 to 1 action. Mail your M bodies in now. PM me for Bennie the Leg Breaker's address.

    On a more enlightened note, I do sometimes use my 50mm f3.5 M mount Elmar that Sherry K. tried to clean as a soft portrait lens. It just would not clean up real well. Gives a "New Leica Kinda Look" for an old lens. Very low contrast and you do have to know where the light source is to dodge flair.

    I do hope the original poster finds the tools he is looking for to enhance his photography. I'm blessed to have my father's IIIf and friend's father's M2 and my wife's gift to me an M8.2 (yea I know APUG/DPUG and all that) They all have taught me more about my passion, my art and myself. One can get that from a Canon, Nikon or what ever too.

    Lee

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    OH
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,789
    Images
    2
    The Ikon and the 35/2 are both fantastic. I think you'll enjoy them quite a bit. Have fun with them.

  5. #65
    artonpaper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Images
    135
    [QUOTE=NB23;1318763]The Off-Center theory is interesting but this implies that all my lenses will behave differently if I use them on a Bessa, for example...

    Like I say, whether this is truly noticeable is questionable, but, it does imply that the Lieca lenses throw a larger image circle to cover the slightly off center film frame. If this true it may make a difference at the edges of the image, at certain apertures. So, it may make a noticeable difference when using a non Leica lens on a Leica body, rather than the other way around. I admit to pure conjecture here. Like everyone says, where you point it and when you push the button, matter more.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by artonpaper View Post

    But the reason for getting a Leica RF was always the feel of the camera, the great parallax correction, and the mystique of the lenses.
    For what those lenses cost, I'd want more than mystique.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The highest state
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Moopheus View Post
    For what those lenses cost, I'd want more than mystique.
    LOl, I don't think it would fit into APUG posting guidelines to say what I would want...

    Seriously though, use what you want...but take a look around at what the vast majority of the best PJ / documentary work has been done on in the post war era, it is not Leica. For example, the phenomenal Eugene Richards used Olympus bodies for most of his pre-digital career. He did use a Leicaflex for a piece for Geographic though...
    "I'm the freak that shoots film. God bless the freaks!" ~ Mainecoonmaniac ~

  8. #68
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Mack View Post
    ...while I can afford, say, an M4-P, I can't afford the body AND a Leica lens. Would a Zeiss lens be an acceptable substitute for the Leica glass? Or are there other suggestions?

    Thanks to all who reply.

    With best regards,

    Stephen
    Acceptable to whom? Are we all a bunch of high school girls now?

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    697
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
    ..but take a look around at what the vast majority of the best PJ / documentary work has been done on in the post war era, it is not Leica. For example, the phenomenal Eugene Richards used Olympus bodies for most of his pre-digital career. He did use a Leicaflex for a piece for Geographic though...
    After WWII, Leitz focuses on the aerospace and other more attractive for them areas.
    While most PJ enjoyed SLRs and whatnot, a lenses based on Leitz 50mm Summicron were used in satellites for orientation of gyroscopes, I am giving just a camera related example, You got the idea.
    Simply put, after revolutionizing photography in the 1930s, there was nothing interesting left for them.

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    293
    Images
    64
    Everyone knows nothing beats Leica -- Capa used Contaxes to shoot the D-Day invasion, and look how out of focus those shots are! /sarcasm
    Nikon 35mm, Mamiya 645 & RB67, Leica IIIb, other bits and pieces



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin