Now That Is Sharp
One for the gearheads:
I compared a Cosina Voigtländer Heliar f/3.5 50 mm to a Leitz Elmar f/3.5 5cm on my Leica IIIf. Some of you might be interested how that came out.
A hint: I didn't much care for the "Leica Glow".
Best regards, Christoph
It appears that young man is in his own contre jour situation
not saying against the cvh but I think the elmar flare is quite sweet
I like the way it has bled into the shadows giving some atmospheric heavenliness ..good for objects but as we see perhaps horrible for strongly backlit portraits
No comparison shot
But he does call a Leica IIIf 'man jewelry', so not all is lost.
Where's the comparison here? The scenes are miles apart different.
Regardless, Leitz makes some excellent lenses - and the "glow" is definitely a feature.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
Well, cleaning marks are lenscapabilitys worst enemy so on those conditons any lens could do that
Exposed Fuji Sensia, CHECK, lots of them. Tetenal E6 three bath kit 1L, CHECK. Jobo CPE2+ with lift. CHECK
So what are you waiting for dude? Get those slidefilms processed.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I am sorry to say that this is a most foul non-comparison of two lenses that nobody wants to compare anyhow. Interesting as examples to point out the [already well-know and well-documented] difference between "fresh" glass and "classic" glass, but I highly doubt anyone considering an Elmar will be considering a newer CV lens as an alternative, and will seriously be having a battle in their heads over which is the best performer from a technical standpoint. If you want anyone to really learn anything from the comparison, you need to go much further in depth and cut back on the editorializing. My two cents.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 05-15-2009 at 05:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
I can't quite see the point of your comparison and conclusion. Totally different subjects, and one lens damaged by cleaning marks?
Any quality modern lens, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc., (and a lot of older ones) would, with care and good technique, produce similar sharpness to the Heliar. That's OK when we need sharpness, but at other times the "imperfections" of an older generation lens may produce a more pictorial effect when we need that.
(Some members here even choose to use simple lenses (and even pinholes) to produce successful and effective pictures. )
Reading some of the responses in this thread I thought I had mistakenly walked into Photo.net. :rolleyes:
Last edited by Andy K; 05-15-2009 at 05:47 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.
Hamlet, Act I, Scene V:
Ghost: "Murder most foul, as in the best it is,
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural."
Yea verily, someone did that to the poor Elmar.
But I had to get over it.
1950's vintage 50/3.5 Elmars are given to veiling - something about the glass formulation absorbing moisture. The problem can not be fixed. Look at the lens with a very bright light shining through it and see if there is haze.
As to sharpness, I think in a low flare comparison shoot the Elmar and the CV will be comparable.