jason_b.

<p>Thanks for the responses. I'll get an add up as soon as I unpack (just moved). Keep your eyes peeled!<br>

J-</p>

<p>I used to be a very active member on this board, but I've been gone a while. I have a few pieces of gear left that I would like to sell in order to get into an M9 and start shooting with Leicas again.<br>

Where is the best place to sell an MP a la carte these days? I used to sell 90% of my stuff through this forum, but I see they've changed things a bit. Are there other forums that are good? Is ebay even worth bothering with for something special like this?<br>

Thanks, and it's good to be back.<br>

J-</p>

Don't know if this is allowed under the new rules, but I've got a version 2 for sale in the new

correct for sale area. Let me know if you are interested.

I've has both lenses and got to know the previous one quite well. I'm still getting used to the

ASPH. Overall, the old lens was a little muddy wide open and close up. And had less contrast

at all times than the new one. The ASPH though isn't TOO contasty or anything like that, it

just has a better feeling of "clarity" or whatever that means. Up close it is great - my portraits

with it are so much better than with the old ones. It also seems totally flare resistant. The old

one was great in this regard, but the ASPH is just rediculously good. Ergonomically they were

both nice - I like the E43 old one more than the E46 because of the detachable hood. There

were some problems with early ASPH lenses being a bit stiff in the focusing ring, but that

sould be mostly ironed out and the new one I've got is great.

The same EXACT thing happened to me. Everyone made fun of me for putting it in fixer first

- but I didn't do that. What I did do was use a bottle of rodinal that had been sitting half

empty for a year. No developer no pictures and no edge print (which by the way eliminates a

loading error - you would still have edge print). It is probably your diafine, or maybe you

missed a bath in the dark. Don't feel too bad.

I was suprised how mich I noticed the difference between the leica 28/2 and the VC 28/1.9. It

comes down to clarity and contrast - which I tend to notice more than sharpness. The leica

lens just has this quality of "clearness" - I feel like the prints just take me to what's in front of

the camera. The VC was ok, even a little glowey which some of us like, but it felt a little

muddy. That, and the focus stiffened up so I returned it, and being so pissed off at having to

do that dropped 2K more on the Leica. I'm glad I did it though and would not switch back no

matter what.

This discussion touches on what i mean about things being in different places:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=002hc3

Did the 24mm thing for a while. Lots of fun, but I was better off with the 28 in the end. I

KNOW all wides distort, but as has been documented on nemeng.com etc. there is a

difference between certain lenses (just try a nikon 21 vs a leica - the total coverage is the

same, but everything is in a different place within the frame). From my recollection, the

21/3.4 was more pleasing in the corners than the 21/2.8 pre asph. So, same focal length,

different optical output. Once again, does anyone have experience with how the two existing

zeiss lenses perform relative to the two Leica ones I just mentioned?

So, it has been a while since I've posted. I have been trying to get the vibe of the 50/1.4 ASPH and my

28'cron. Pretty amazing lenses.

I've been wanting to try a 21mm again, but hate the stretched feling that some 21mm lenses give. I DON'T

mean the geometric wide angle distortion by which lines converge etc, but rather the way an object seems

to smear as it nears the corners.

Supposedly the 21/3.4 is great at controlling this, and the subsequent Leica lenses haven't come as close.

How does the ZM measure up in this regard, and for that matter the 21G?

Aside from distortion, the only other quality I care about is resistance to flare. Sharpness and contrast are

less important to me these days - I've already got lenses that do that!

It doesn't really work with the 50 lines. I've used it and it was really hard to see where the

edges of the picture were. That said, the focusing ability was unreal - I use it on my M3 when

I shoot with my 28/2. It is doable with the 50 lines, just not my taste.

Whatever the design decision, they perfectly match my M4's lines and don't match lines in the

M6TTLs that I had. Personally, I'm stoked!!

My M4 and Mp with Mp3 lines have 35mm lines that match too, not just the 50mm. I don't

have an M6 around, but I remember they were different than the M4. Seems we've got some

different results on our hands.

I absolutely compared my MP a la cart with an M6 and my M4. The coverage was that of the

M4. The framelines are a little different though. To allow for the meter diods to display, there

is very little of the bottom framelines for 50 and 35mm. This doesn't really bother me - there

is enough to judge where the edge of the picture is.

Jonathan- I ordered an a-la-cart MP with MP3 framlines because they are in fact larger like

the M4/M2. It arrived and they are great. No more weird stuff in the edges of my 50mm

shots.

When I shoot, I do things in a hurry, and don't want to have to be pulling things on and off

my lenses. granted a IIIF isn't a speedy camera to use as it is, but I'd rather stick with

somthing a little simpler. That said I know the 3.5s are great lenses, and I'd like to try one

out someday, just not yet. Back to 50/2.5 vs 2.8 optics?

My IIIF doesn't go closer than 1m, so no difference there. The 2.8 elmar gets pretty small

when collapsed no? The 3.5 elmar would be great, but I'm a UV filter user, so no go - can't

get at the aperture with a filter over the thing. Also, 3.5 is a bit too slow for me.

I want to get a 50 for my IIIF and am unsure of what I'd like best. I like how small the 50/2.8 elmar is, but

it's hard to find one without internal haze. Is the CV 50/2.5 as good as the old elmar? How to they both do

against the light? I have a 50/2 nikkor which is a great lens, but its really big and really heavy. I will still

use it, but would like something smaller and lighter.

There are a bunch of utilites for the i9900 that you can use. Sounds like you need to clean

and align you print heads.

I really like the 50 asph. I used the pre 1.4 for a long long time, and miss it sometimes, but

not for portraits, and not wide open. It was great in strong light at f4-11. The new 50 asph is

really, really different, but let's put it this way: I'll never shoot with a 'cron again!

I could never get Rodinal + Tri-X up above 640. There just insn't enough shadow speed. Xtol

1:2 is great, or D76 Stock is still the king.

Here's a weird twist. I tend to like the bokeh on the ASPHs wide open, better than the pre-

ASPHa, and at 5.6 I like the pre-ASPHs bokeh better than the ASPHs.

There are two separate factors involved. ONE: direct sun hitting your front element can cause

light to bounce around within the lens itself between the elements. TWO: The sun, which is

outside the "frame" of your composed photograph, is still well within the image circle

projection of your lens, and is resolved with full detail and brightness inside your camera on

your bellows, which is right next to your film and fogs or flares it - this is called BELLOWS

FLARE. Bellows flare caused way more problems for me than lens flare ever did. Then I got a

really good rectangular shade and that was that. No non-image forming light gets into the

camera.