Doc Henry Posted February 7, 2009 Share #41 Posted February 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I bought it yesterday! A fanstastic new Elmar 4/90 mm black, I'm really looking forward to test it.Thank you all for sharing you experience and for the useful suggestions, Tommaso Hi Tommaso,That's a good choice It's a very good lens and if you like macrophotography you can have this kind of picture : http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/75374-orchids-winter.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2009 Posted February 7, 2009 Hi Doc Henry, Take a look here Elmar 4/90mm or Elmarit 2.8/90mm. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
JJKapsberger Posted February 8, 2009 Share #42 Posted February 8, 2009 My statements above are by the figures. These are published officially, by Leica. I don't give much for mushy statements about 'fingerprints' that nobody manages to put a finger on, and that are at best simply old prejudices... I see. So if a Yamaha piano is louder than a Steinway it's a better piano, because the colour of the Steinway and its responsiveness to touch and palette of colours counts for nothing (one can't translate those things into publishable numbers), and the performers who prefer the Steinway's are simply showing old prejudices. I've always wondered about that. Thanks for coming down from the 'Age of Facts' and clarifying that for me. ...[The 90mm Summarit] has now replaced the Elmarit, and it is at least marginally superior to it, as it is marginally faster. Ah, yes! It's faster, so it's better! I, who long have argued that the Canon 50 f/0.95 blows the doors off the latest 50 Summicron, have been vindicated at last! But of course the older lenses are superior, if you actually do prefer inferior optical perfomance. And some people seem to do just that. Like they adore the "Leica Glow" which is just undercorrected spherical aberration, and a strong susceptibility to flare. You mean lens signature can count for something and performance might not be everything? But, but.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leica_mage Posted February 8, 2009 Share #43 Posted February 8, 2009 I don't give much for mushy statements about 'fingerprints' that nobody manages to put a finger on, and that are at best simply old prejudices dressed up to look like facts. Yes. Talk to members of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra about that one. If you dare. The old man from the Age of Facts As most of contributors here LOVE to say: 'IMHO'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andym911 Posted February 8, 2009 Share #44 Posted February 8, 2009 Enjoy the lens....I prefer the oldie Elmar's but am sure yours will be great..here an Oldie Elmar from the 1950's shot earlier today with the M8.2 at 1250 ASA. Andy Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/5679-elmar-490mm-or-elmarit-2890mm/?do=findComment&comment=803442'>More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2009 Share #45 Posted February 9, 2009 I see. So if a Yamaha piano is louder than a Steinway it's a better piano, because the colour of the Steinway and its responsiveness to touch and palette of colours counts for nothing (one can't translate those things into publishable numbers), and the performers who prefer the Steinway's are simply showing old prejudices. I've always wondered about that. Thanks for coming down from the 'Age of Facts' and clarifying that for me. Modulation transfer function values are not exactly equivalent to the loudness of sounds, you know. At least I think you do. Ah, yes! It's faster, so it's better! I, who long have argued that the Canon 50 f/0.95 blows the doors off the latest 50 Summicron, have been vindicated at last! I did not say that. The sentence means "as it is superior, it is ALSO faster". Go ask your English teacher. The micro-contrast in parts of the image field is a little bit higher in the Summarit. Do you want to say that by discontinuing the Elmarit in favour of the Summarit, Leica saddled their customers with an inferior product? You mean lens signature can count for something and performance might not be everything? But, but.... But for Chrissake. I have argued elsewhere (but on this forum) that there may be other things besides sharpness that do make an image interesting. But if we consider the lens a working tool, and not a fetish or something, then one that can draw both very sharply (in focus) and softly (out of focus) must be regarded as a more useful tool than one which is capable ony of producing mushy images. And if we want 'Leica glow' then we can have it, and inexpensively. Mine comes from a 1960 1:2.8/50mm Elmar which once cost me less than the present equivalent of 200 euros, used at 2.8 or 4.0. And I do use it occasionally! But for most purposes, it is my Summilux ASPH. The old man from the Age of Facts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lars_bergquist Posted February 9, 2009 Share #46 Posted February 9, 2009 Yes. Talk to members of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra about that one. If you dare. I am a peaceloving old man, but I have been mano a mano with more dangerous people than first violinists in my day---and won. The old man from the Age of Reason Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.