Well, i dont see the problem to use digital here to compare the two lenses. One is 50 years old then the other one, and a price different of 2000 euro but I think its faire to use them in a comparison as long as this is given. So i dont see the test as "look how much better this lens is" but instead just to see what a modern lens give VS a 50 year old lens (they had to pick a lens so why not go with what exist today).
Originally Posted by softshock
Thats cool, i have actually never used it indoor, have to try that out. On the other hand not that oftan I have a situuation that demands a 135 indoor... but that only means I have to come up with one.
Originally Posted by ntenny
Well, i dont like the rummors, but you can look at the images and just judge the result, thats what I did.... a test is a test
Originally Posted by elekm
Do you have any constructive to say or cant you just understand English? I dont tink my lens has a problem, but personal I decide what is quality and not the letters that are printed on the front of the lens. This lens is 50 years old, it will not be the quality we expect of Leica today. I use Leica but that dosent mean that I like every thing that comes out from the Leica factory, for example the M5 and M6 I never liked, nor did I like the M8 or any of the R1-6, and there are some lenses that I just didnt like the look they gave. Stop being such a brand whore when it comes to Leica. Somehow you have got stuck on the idea that everything that Leica do is super quality and a mark of luxury which its fare from. I hope you enjoy your canon eos 1000 + ef 35-70 and your "fuji 10 dollar camera"
Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac
And for the Holga remark, I have seen better photographs from people using Holgas than I have seen from certain Leica brand wh%re, so certainly equipment is not everything.
Take the review for what it is, personal i never liked the color rendering nor the soft image the 135 liked and I thought i could be fun to see a comparison of a 50 year or lens to a modern.