I feel most people shoot at apertures greater than 5.6 for the bulk of their photography. I realize the "wide open" fad is important to some but for me I only shoot wide open on the very rare occasion when the image I want to create demands that type of look.
Thanks, the 1st shots were focused @ ~ 20 meters, the last was probably @ ~ 2, All shots were hand held at 1/60 and less, 1st 3 shots are ~ 10ASA CMS20, the IR efke820aura shot was @1ASA. If I need to shoot from tripod, I have Sinar P for that purposeBeautiful pictures but not really a prove for Leica's superiority since they were mostly shot at infinty. Leica lenses are absolutely superb but not that much better than their Nikon counterpart from the 1960's. Furthermore the 3.5/50 Elmar is not better than the Contax 3.5 Tessar and definetely less sharp than a well done planar or sonnar design. The Summitar if it's a pre war model is again a beautiful lens and I love it's look but the average Nikon Standard lens of the 60's is just as sharp if not sharper. Where Leica lenses shine in my opinion is the look they give especially the older lenses. Sharpness wise the Contax (until 1960'S) lenses were just as sharp and before the war much sharper than their leica counterparts. Love the Leitz Xenon and 1.5/50 Summarit not supersharp but beautiful rendering.
The Summitar is one of my favorite lenses to use, but I don't understand it's place in this discussion. Not a fair or useful comparison, as the Summitar and Nikkor SLR lenses were not direct contemporaries/competitors of each other. In a technical sense, my '60's Nikkors blow the Summitar away. They are sharper, more contrasty, less distorted, better in the corners, have less harsh out of focus areas when you stop down (and less harsh "star" patterns from point light sources), are much less flare prone (and when they do flare, it usually does not ruin the entire image by putting a big blob in the middle of the frame). Plus they have the inherent advantage of being more easily and accurately focusable, hence much more user friendly in real-world use. And that doesn't even involve looking at the later multi-coated glass version. I love my Summitar, but it is not something I would even try to put up against a Nikkor SLR lens to determine which company made the "better" lens.
The Nikkor 105 and the 90mm Summicron (non-asph) are nearly identical in signature and performance, only the Leica does everything one stop earlier. Both are slightly soft wide open (good for portraits): 2.0 vs. 2.5. Both become very sharp closed one stop (2.8 vs. 4.0).
Whether the added (but not extreme) expense of the Leica lens is worth that stop real advantage can certainly be debated.
Please, show us some B&W shots.luckily, nikon made more than one 105. my cron 90 has been quietly fogging up in the closet (one thing leica lenses are definitely better at) ever since the day i mounted the 105/1.8
luckily, nikon made more than one 105. my cron 90 has been quietly fogging up in the closet (one thing leica lenses are definitely better at) ever since the day i mounted the 105/1.8
Please, show us some B&W shots.
Actually, there were two versions of the 105/2.5. The first, a Sonnar clone, then a double Gauss type. The later version is supposed to be marginally better at close distances.
shots? what shots? i thought this thread was about fondling, no?
besides, then you would take the same one with the cron and say yours is better, right? riiiiiiight? nah nah nah, i'm not falling for this one...
I don't think so.
As somebody who has tried such a setup, even on an M3 (best M viewfinder by a large margin) to compose and even remotely accurately focus a 90mm f/2 is, as our american friends will say, a crapshoot at best. I don't use anything longer than 50mm on my M now. Give me my 105/2.5 on my Nikon F any day. The accurate compositional and focusing abilities will more than make up for any optical advantages (and, let's face it, it's a small advantage, as another posted said, the 90 'cron is about a stop ahead of the 105/2.5) the M might have.
Though my comparison involved an *R Summicron*, I never mentioned an M...
The 90 Summicron Apo ASPH between the M and the R has the exact same 5-element design though.
If I may add, who also lives on another planet, grew up listening to Elvis Presley, Patsy Cline, Jerry Reed.. and still doFair enough - but I was actually responding to the post targeted at georg16nik, who is a fanatical rangefinder user...
nah, the Nikon shots might look like coming from whatever You say...but my shots are even worse than a high-end iPhoneWow. Leica and Nikon images that look like they were taken with high-end Canon DSLRs.
Forget all about the lens sharpness in the 35mm world. Even with the top Zeiss and top Nikon, you won't see any difference. The camera differences are much more significant.
Unless you move to MF, you won't see the diff among the top 35mm makers in the lens.
Forget all about the lens sharpness in the 35mm world. Even with the top Zeiss and top Nikon, you won't see any difference. The camera differences are much more significant.
Unless you move to MF, you won't see the diff among the top 35mm makers in the lens.
However, if a camera is used on a tripod, very carefully focused and the metering is done with a handheld meter, *HOW* are camera differences more significant than lens differences in the final result?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?