That's essentially correct. Modern Leica lenses are designed to be used
wide open, and usually deliver superb performance wide open. After stopping
down 2-3 stops, they are typically equal with most other top-notch brands.
With SLR lenses, it's also important to have lenses with wide apertures to
also allow easier viewing and autofocus capabilities. Few modern SLR lenses
are optimized for wide-open use. Rangefinder lenses don't have that issue
to deal with. That doesn't mean you can't make a crappy RF lens, of course.
It also doesn't mean that there are some superb SLR lenses that work great
wide open.
Skip
----Original Message Follows----
From: Brian Swale <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] (OM) Performance of Zuiko 40/2
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:34:19 +1200
Richard and I wrote (all mixed up here)
I agree, you have a point.
For a while I read some Leica group material (can't remember where ) and
they made the point that Leica lenses were intended to be good at their
widest aperture. I don't know if they actually turned out that way, but the
goal
was there, and it seems a good idea. After all, what's the point of having a
fast lens if the resolution wide open is so bad nobody wants to use it?
I did make some crucial shots with my 40/2 last year, f/4 because of low-
light, and am a little disappointed with the definition; however I had no
option
but to hand-hold at 1/30 sec, on Ektar 25 asa. Compromises all round there.
Brian
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|