Amateur Photographer Magazine

Skip to Content
Digital Photography Forum - A shared resource

Equipment >> Leica Camera Chat

 |  Print Thread
BrianT
Old Hand


Reged: 16/05/2001
Posts: 5987
Loc: Leeds
Re: M- Lens Classifications
      03/10/2007 09:21

Quote:

Given the modish perception of today, that technical quality assumes a far greater dominance over photographic communication in a picture than is good for it, that's fine. Personally I'll opt for the older glass, even with their abberations, 99% of the time. They have character in bucketloads.






Cor you don't arf talk posh.

And of course the finish and attention to detail with proper Leitz lenses put their modern counterparts into the shade.

Quote:

The Voigtlander 90mm/3.5 Apo-Lanthar is said to be a cracking lens for the money.





Money didn't come into it Tim, it's a little cracker.

--------------------
Brian BSRIPN

Oh for the days when Elvis was king and everything else was a 50th @ F11.

Post Extras Print Post   Remind Me!     Notify Moderator


Entire topic
Subject Posted by Posted on
* M- Lens Classifications photogeek 02/10/2007 17:12
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications bagpuss   30/11/2007 07:07
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications Ploy   30/11/2007 11:03
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications hhmr   01/12/2007 12:50
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications mike_j   01/12/2007 21:28
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications hhmr   02/12/2007 17:35
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications mike_j   02/12/2007 19:19
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications hhmr   02/12/2007 20:13
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications mike_j   02/12/2007 21:25
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications bagpuss   04/12/2007 09:49
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications mike_j   08/12/2007 19:56
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   02/10/2007 19:23
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications PeteE   02/10/2007 20:25
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications Mark_Norton   02/10/2007 22:04
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   03/10/2007 08:10
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications Mark_Norton   03/10/2007 09:02
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications TimF   03/10/2007 13:51
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   03/10/2007 09:36
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BenchistaModerator   03/10/2007 13:57
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications topoxforddoc   03/10/2007 21:52
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   04/10/2007 09:53
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications topoxforddoc   05/10/2007 22:31
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications TimF   06/10/2007 08:57
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   06/10/2007 11:41
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications Mark_Norton   06/10/2007 12:25
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   06/10/2007 14:27
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications photogeek   04/10/2007 12:05
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications TimF   03/10/2007 13:46
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications photogeek   03/10/2007 08:20
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications TimF   03/10/2007 08:49
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications BrianT   03/10/2007 09:21
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications TimF   03/10/2007 13:44
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications Mark_Norton   03/10/2007 09:28
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications Mark_Norton   03/10/2007 09:12
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications photogeek   03/10/2007 09:59
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications bagpuss   04/10/2007 07:52
. * * Re: M- Lens Classifications TimF   03/10/2007 08:54

Extra information
0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  admin, GCW, Siuya, huwevans, Benchista, Fen, TheFatControlleR, Damien Demolder, AndrewC, mark_jacobs, daft_biker, Myk.R 


Print Thread
Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      Mark-up is enabled

Rating:
Thread views: 5311

Rate this thread

Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy statement Main website

Generated in 0.027 seconds in which 0.011 seconds were spent on a total of 12 queries. Zlib compression disabled.