[LRflex] Re: Mid range zoom advice
- From: Philippe Amard <phamard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:37:21 +0100
Gruss Got Peter,
I've just had a look at your posts; which is which?
I'd say n° 1 is Angénieux, n° 2 Leitz, or is it the converse :-\
About the 70-210 and 35-70 threads (mix up?): Light conditions on the
landscape are fairly different between snap 1 & 2 - difficult to have a
precise idea here as the forest rendition changes as a result - but i'd
be curious to see the same experiment carried out again under more
consistent lighting - thanks anyway, it was a good idea to try on this -
BTW what happened to the walls on the third pict, look greyinsh , is
this the result of PS magicor is it really the lense that does that?
I don't want to ruin Aram's thread on the mid range, so could you post
more snaps at various focal lengths and apertures - if using digital
equipment of course - this would be a great contribution for everyone
wondering here.
Thanks in anticipation
Phileicangénieux
pwerner@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>May add my grain of salt Aram,
>
>Since I have most of the available choices, I could actually compare them. I
>have used them on the R9+DMR: I made some comparison shots on http://www.
>leicaphoto.net/discus/messages/7/340.html?1132617662, but they do not really
>help in making a selection.
>
>Comments:
>--------
>
>2.8/35-70 Vario Elmarit - It is said to be one of the best lenses Leica ever
>made, unfortunately very very expensive. It was too expensive to build and
>Leica
>stopped making them after they built some 200 (some say 400) lenses. It is
>indeed fantastic in sharpness, contrast, color rendition, bokeh, but
>relatively
>bulky and heavy. It also has excellent macro cababilities. You can find pre-
>ownded ones around US$ 7000 (yes seven thousand US dollars). I do not use it
>so
>often because I feel uncomfortable when carrying ariound such an expensive
>piece
>of glass, it would be a big loss if it was stolen. It is also very complicated
>mechanically and I fear it might get easily damaged by an accidental shock.
>And
>finally I do not like to carry so much weight.
>
>4/35-70 Vario Elmar - My favorite and one of the best bargains in Leica zoom
>lenses: excellent sharpness, contrast, color rendition, bokeh, combined with
>relatively small weight and size. It has become the lens I use most. You can
>see
>some pictures I took with it on my web site. (http://www.leicaphoto.net/discus/
>messages/7/7.html?1130732384).
>You can find good used ones around $800
>
>2.5-3.3/35-70 Angenieux - compared to the 4/35-70 better maximum aperture,
>bulkier although not heavier (lots of carbon fiber to keep down the weight).
>Color rendition is excellent, a bit warmer than the Leica lenses, but
>sharpness
>and contrast below f/5.6 are not as good as the Leica 4/35-70 (or 2.8/35-70 of
>course). Recommended if you need bigger aperture. if you can live with f/4 go
>for the Vaior-Elmar. You can find used ones between $300-800
>
>2.8/45-90 Angenieux - as bulky as the 35-70 Angenieux but heavier (all metal).
>
>Of historical interest. Good color rendition (warmer, as all Angenieux), but
>not
>as sharp as the other lenses I mentioned.
>
>I have not used the 2.8/28-90. I have heard very positive comments on Fred
>Miranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/267995). Since it is quite
>bulky
>and heavy, I prefer to stick to the 4/35-70 Elmar and use the smaller and
>lighter Vario Elmar 4/21-35 for wider angle. Maximum aperture is not so
>important for my kind of photography.
>
>I hope these comments have been useful
>Cheers
>Peter
>
>
>------
>Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
> http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
>Archives are at:
> //www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
>
>
>
>
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www3.telus.net/~telyt/lrflex.htm
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
