Jump to content

Summilux what for?


lincoln_m

Recommended Posts

Guest Marc G.

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Whether to use a Lux or Cron is all about the DOF at wide apertures, but there is so little in it below f2 that I think most people would find it impossible to tell the difference between the two comparing prints side by side.

 

What a lot of people get wrong is that (using film) you adjust the shutter speed to compensate for changing light not the aperture. The aperture is changed to adjust DOF.

 

There are so many bad images out there with shallow DOF.... a look that gets boring very quickly if there is nothing else in the image to sustain one's attention.

 

I think it would be hard comparing prints of the lenses stopped down but wide open it's fairly easy due to the character of the lenses

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Marc G.
I would find it very hard to tell images apart shot at f2 with these lenses, in fact I would probably just be guessing.

 

the most obvious difference would be the out of focus rendering I guess. e.g. the pre-APO summicron and summilux asph are quite different in this regard

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and I don't recall reading anyone here that was writing to the contrary. So I'm not sure why we needed to be dragged through the whole codes, signs and semiotics nonsense anyway, particularly when these pictures above prove it utter nonsense. Red is not just sex, danger hot etc - it is how it has been portrayed in the past but you can make it what ever you want it to be. It's like buying a book titled 101 Dream Interpretations and expecting it to be a window to your soul and answer to all your problems. There are no standards in art and in any technique so lets not imply any technique is amateurish, "arty", cheap trick, coded or what ever and just accept that everything can be a viable vehicle of expression when used judiciously and cleverly.

 

This is what I meant about art school, which some obviously took offence too - This is what it does, in trying explain something deeply complex to it needs to be simplified and by doing so it puts things in a box and misses the boat entirely. Art is a feeling that shouldn't be analysed, explained or broken down.

 

Funny that there is nothing to disagree. You're just willing to misunderstand the whole here. Are you trying to do this at nihilistic way or you just believe that only you who knows something? There is nothing to grasp, attack or defend. When one says an opinion or express his feeling, that's all and the life continues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

afford or not afford.

 

if you cannot afford what happens? are you bad because youre poor?

 

a way you create for a new GAS

 

:p:P:p

 

Not to worry. In the end, expensive equipment means really nothing except perhaps to commercial photographers who are photographing products or concepts for sale in the marketplace. Or hobbyists. But then again, this is a forum about Leica gear.

 

btw, here's an interview between Susan Meiselas (look her up for info about her work) and Danny Lyon http://bombsite.com/issues/120/articles/6620

 

"Edwards had loaned me his Rolleiflex—that was the first 2 1/4 inch I used. And I must have taken it south, because some of those pictures are square format. I had a funky old Leica M2 that scratched every picture. Eventually, the Nikon F would be my real workhorse. With The Bikeriders, I didn’t use a Leica. It was a Nikon Reflex, that early, single-lens Reflex. It was such a fabulous camera with a prism on it—no light meter. I had a 2 1/4 inch for The Bikeriders also. When I got to Manhattan in 1967 and realized what I was getting into, making architectural pictures, I went to Olden’s on Broadway and 43rd Street and got the cheapest view camera you could get—a Calumet."

 

fwiw, Danny Lyon is now often using a Canon G11 point and shoot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to my 35 lux:

 

I like the speed for available light, and yes it is a difference - I love to have the extra stops... I do a lot of AL.

 

I like the image/color rendering aka 'character'

 

I like the handling, build quality and ergonomics- its a masterpiece of a lens

 

I don't like the price -.-, but sometimes you should buy nice things :-)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't like the price -.-, but sometimes you should buy nice things :-)!

 

I agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying/owning something expensive that may be personally satisfying (and for a variety of reasons.)

 

But I think we all know that it is not a prerequisite to making compelling images.....even if a for-profit business like Leica might try to make us think otherwise :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Specs for the 55mm f/1.4 Distagon fromZiess:

Technical specifications:

Focal length- 55mm

Aperture range- f/1.4 – f/16

Focusing range- 0,5m (19.68 ″) – ∞

Number of elements/groups- 12/10

Angular field, diag./horiz./vert.- 43,7° / 36,7° / 24,9°

Coverage at close range- 246 x 163mm (9.69 x 6.42″)

Filter thread- M77 x 0.75

Dimensions (with caps)- ZF.2: 141mm (5.55″) / ZE: 144mm (5.66″)

Diameter of focusing ring- ZF.2: 83mm (3.27″) / ZE: 83mm (3.27″)

Weight- ZF.2: 970g (2.22 lbs) / ZE: 1030g (2.43 lbs)

Camera mounts- F Mount (ZF.2) / EF Mount (ZE)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...