cpy_leitz

Re: photo arsenal, shop in Hong Kong. I live in HK and I regret to say this is one shop I would eagerly avoid at all cost. I don't know

D Purdy but the shop keeper I have the unfortune to meet is not an honest bloke.

<p>I have been quite lucky to have removed fungus from a few nikon primes, the whole piece dismantled down to bear bones and clean the inner elements. Of course you need the right tools and the right skills and patience with this as the process can drive you nuts. If your lens caught fungus, don't put it in the same box as the other good lens. The silica will do nothing to stop the fungus from spreading. Get rid of the lens or get rid of the fungus. Contrary to common belief, it may take decades before the fungus start eating into the lens coating. Fungus works very very slowly.</p>

<p>I've read all the comments and I think they all have merits, but I don't think they answer the question fully. There are two perspectives in answering the question, 1) shooting technique and practicality, 2) the optical nature of 50 vs 85.<br /> 1) shooting technique and practicality.When shooting candid, that is, not in studio where everything are staged, shooting prime means you are framing with your legs. In that case, it's always (IMO) easier to move a step forward then to move a step backward. And it's always possible to cheat in post-production to crop the picture. In my years working with prime lens on street photography and wedding, the 50 focal length always got me the most shots in terms of full and half-body portrait shots. But that's just me, some people actually prefers the 35mm focal length.<br /> 2) the optical nature of 50 vs 85. When talking about the two focal length and which one is "best", we must understand the optical effect of the two on prints. Because 85mm got its fame as the best portrait focal length in the era of print photography, not in the digital era when most of what we do is look at the pictures on our monitor and zoom in on 100% crop. Shown on print, the focal length of 85mm for portrait plus the distance of the audience looking at the picture would be the most ideal for portrait photos. Please bear in mind I'm talking about portraits here. 50mm, OTOH, as most of you know, is the closest to human vision perspective. 85mm focal length gives a rounder and more narrow perspective to the subject and that's why it is better for above shoulder shots and half-body shots (because it makes the subject more "pleasing to look at").These are the things you'll only know from the old-school era when everything is judged on slides and prints.<br /> Conclusion, 50mm is always my prefered focal length when shooting candid or wedding or journalistic, it gives me just the right frame to tell a story. For that reason, I don't use 85mm as much in these situations.<br>

Personally, I didn't think the 50 L 1.2 was worth the money. You see, 50mm is the easiest focal length to design, the 1.4 actually does a really fantastic job. As for 85L 1.2 MK II, I think it's really exceptional, very sharp even wide open, but I'm a bit bothered with the heavy CA. Lots of fall-out too as expected from aperture this wide. The two reasons to get 1.2 instead of 1.8 are low light and bokeh. You think they are not important? Try shooting at a cathedral, you'll be so jaw-droppingly amazed with the 85mm 1.2L.</p>

 

<p>My lord,<br>

Methinks we men have time to post questions and feedbacks on forums but no time to read manuals, sir.</p>

<p>Better yet, if you insist on a Lux, you can buy my copy - MINT cosmetic and optical, just a bit of dust, that's all. I have both LUX and CRON 50, I'm keeping the CRON.</p>

<p>If the fungus is already visible, chances of a full recovery is slim. I can guarantee that the attempt-to-repair quote will be high and probably not justified. The loose focus ring "might" be an easier fix though. If I were you, I take Steve's advice to request a refund, if you can't - give yourself an excuse to buy a summicron 50, which is better than lux E55 anyways. But this time, check carefully!!!!</p>

 

<p>Greg, here's a picture taken with version 1. Smoother bokeh, no. Sharpness, not as good as version 2 wide open. This is an inherent "flaw" (dare I say) in its design which was corrected in version 2. For black and white film, version 1 delivers pleasantly rich tonalty (some may call it "contrasty" but I think it's not about the contrast, it's about the tonal diversity, i.e. the many shades of greys, if you will)</p><div></div>

<p>Obviously replying to an old thread here but hopefully might be of use to others who came upon similar query here. <br>

If anyone is concerned about DSLR compatibility with Leica lens (i.e. lens rear hitting the DSLR mirror) this is a useful link - <br>

http://www.pebbleplace.com/Leica_DB/Table_L03.html<br>

I second Ben on the marginal difference of Cron vs Canon EF 50/1.8. As plasticky and inexpensive as it is, Canon has done a marvelous job with the 50 1.8, get past the plastic feel, this is a real performer. I compare shots between the Canon EF50/1.8, Summicron-R E55, Summilux-R E55 and the difference is very, very marginal. Summilux may have slightly better bokeh, Summicron may be slightly sharper, but in terms of tonality, colour reproduction, CA, vignetting and EVEN sharpness, Canon is neck to neck. <br>

Having owned all three for 2 years now, I keep asking myself why I'd bothered keeping the Summilux. Of the three, it's the heaviest, the most expensive, the least convenient to focus (0 to infinity over 270 degrees) And as much as I like to justify its existence for its 1.4 aperture, I find that I don't need the speed 98% of the time. And contrary to popular belief, I don't find it any sharper than the Cron when stopped down. (note that I'm referring the LUX E55 and not E60, which is of a completely different mechanical design and is said to be far more superior)<br>

At the stage I'm at, I come to realize having the perfect gears is a stumbling block, an illusion, it's the excuse to "blame it on the gears". The lens I use most these days is actually a nikon E-series 35mm. It's another dirt cheap and plasticky, "pauper" lens, I took it apart, cleaned up the fungus, and it's been on my 5D most of the time. <br>

Sorry to side track. In conclusion, I would rather keep the Canon EF50/1.8. The marginal difference does not justify the price. Cron50 is almost 10 times the price but you will only find 0.5% difference. </p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p> </p>