lutz

Has the thought ever occurred to you that it might exactly be the "hoarders" of your kind who make prices of collectibles climb to ridiculous heights, Leica or not? :-) I think most accessories made quite some sense within the period in which they were created and were certainly more accessible and affordable back then.

<img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1040775_web.jpg">

Good one, Knut! Make it a classic by cropping not only the toe but also the sky. Cheers

Here's another classic of his: <a href="http://www.mgf-kulmbach.de/bilderdaten/bilder/Bilder/van%20gogh%201889_jpg.jpg">"Noctilights"</a>.

To confirm your point, Knut, here's another portrait of the <a href="http://www.desitin.de/images/van_Gogh1887.jpg">same gentleman</a>. I guess they call that swirly pictorial quality "gogheh"...? :-)

Hi Vivek, one can get used to quite a lot. Hundreds of families are living where I was standing to shoot that picture - on a heap of glass splinters, surrounded by gutters, rotting rubbish and mosquitoes. It's the glass recycling area of Dharavi, Mumbai. Across the Mahim Creek you can see the Bandra Kurla Complex, Bombay's new financial hub and its shiny hi-rise buildings lurking to take over the highly attractive real estate this side of the divide...

same here... :-(

<img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1040769_adj_web.jpg">

Pity.

Thanks, Peter. I'll dig my way through that and report. ;-)

Hmm, last posts crossed. I'm working on a Mac, so the above mentioned "cure" won't help me...

Hi, I'd like to second Peter Cofran's observations. My screen is calibrated, all CS2 settings are like per Peter Mounier's recommendations. And still, when saving for web through ImageReady the color rendition is totally distorted. The image is lacking green, yellow and saturation. Unless... I set the "view">"preview" in IR to "embedded color profile". But... this would not have any effect on the saved image when viewed in either CS2 or any browser. So, where's the flaw? Thanks for clarifying.

<i>http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625825-lg.jpg</i><p>

Hmm, Clemens. <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625825-lg.jpg">Bokeh</a>...? <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4625765-lg.jpg">Or</a>... <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3119397-lg.jpg">or</a>... ;-) These lenses' qualities (Hexar AF 35 @2.0, Summilux 75 @2.4, Summicron 50 @4.0) may not be important to you, to me they are. When I want *everything* sharp I, too, stop down. But sometimes I prefer a shallow DOF, and that is where bokeh steps in. Cheers.

Well, Clemens, I'm more interested in photographing skintones and vivid street shots rather than newspaper sheets on a wall with a tripod, hence my interest in <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml">"cabalistic science"</a>. But YMMV. Cheers.

Sorry, Alex, but what I see in those pics which I've linked to are donut shaped OOF highlights (see sample 2) and double lines (as in sample 3, the branches) - synonymous to bad bokeh. In fact, the OOF areas are so "busy" in all the three of them that they totally detract attention from the foregrounds. <p>

As for your comparison pics (self portraits), it's astonishing to see how well contained the "glow" of your 35 pre-asph sample is at 1.4, while resolutionwise the Nokton wins hands down. Also interesting, IMHO, is the fact that the Nokton appears to have a more restricted DOF than the 35 pre-asph - a phenomenon which has already been discussed at length in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003N7w">this thread</a>.<p>Cheers.

Yuck... this lens' bokeh looks like the worst I've seen in ages.<p>

<a href=" 1</a> (from above flickr link)<p>

<a href=" 2</a><p>

<a href=" 3</a><p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1762630-lg.jpg"></center>

<div></div>

<i>What is really laughably fuddy-duddy-luddite are all those photographers who shoot b&w. Why they even throw away all that good color data they got with their dslrs leaving merely antiquated b&w. What's up with that? Don't they know its the 21st century?</i><p>

 

Oh, well...

<p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4433163-lg.jpg"><p>

21st century RIP - Mumbai, 2008</center>

Thanks, Mark. :-)

<img src="http://konermann.net/pics4web/P1040726_web.jpg">

Bernie, if you want to complement the 50 you already own and have a wider second lens, go for a 28. It doubles as a versatile landscape and street photo lens, not only in "landscape" but also in "portrait" orientation. Have a look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=687392">these</a> to understand what I'm talking about. <p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5490759-lg.jpg"></center><p>

For landscape you don't need fast, so a 2.8 lens is perfect. But again, if you want versatile get the CV 28/1.9 Ultron and never look back.<p>

If you are into horizons you might as well consider a panoramic second body, like the Hassy XPan with its standard 45mm lens which covers the 24mm equivalent, horizontally. <p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2219881-md.jpg"></center><p>

Or go directly for a Noblex with its 130?+ of coverage. <p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1139753-lg.jpg"></center><p>

Cheers.

Hi, can you point us to any landscape photo on the net that you would like to potentially emulate? IMHO, these may vary from 21mm to 200mm, depending on taste and subject...

<img src="http://www.konermann.net/pics4web/P1030730.web.jpg">

Hi Josh, well, no, I didn't mean you in particular since I didn't know that it was your idea to "advertise" this forum on the main page that way. Fact is, I wish it actually were a little livelier and more outspoken than it is these days, but if one (and again I'm not pointing at you explicitly, since I don't know who is actually responsible for the overall site policy) drains the juice out of it - and I'm counting in the ads for instance, and the never ending, somewhat pointless but amusing d. vs. a. controversies - what we're left with is dry skin and bones. Just my 2 Eurocents. Cheers.