A new lens!

I have two rangefinders with the Leica M-mount, a Leica CL and a Voigtländer Bessa R2M. I prefer using the latter. Maybe that is for sentimental reasons. While I got the Voigtländer brand new from B&H some 20 years ago, I bought the Leica second hand more recently. Or, perhaps it is because of the Voigtländer's brighter viewfinder and more precise light-meter. However, I have often used the Voigtländer with the 40 mm Summicron-C lens that came with the Leica although Voigtländer does not have frame lines for 40 mm (just for 35, 50, 70, and 90 mm).



Some time ago, I therefore decided to by a 35 mm lens. My initial choice was an inexpensive 7Artisans lens, but it was heavy, bulky, obscured a lot of the viewfinder, and felt like it was made of plastic. Then I found a used Voigtländer Nokton 35 mm f1.4 II MC lens on an auction site, and I was able to buy it for a very reasonable price. As the lens arrived, I found that it was in perfect condition, as good as new.

The Nokton lens is all-metal, compact, and pairs beautifully with the Voigtländer. Nevertheless, it is far from perfect optically. In some aspects, the 7Artisans lens may be better. Ken Rockwell, reviews the Nokton lens here and says that it "is a poor lens if you worry about technical performance". Nevertheless, he acknowledges that the lens have other advantages and also says that if you "don't need the best sharpness or worry about distortion, you can make lifetime of great images with it".

The lens is small and light, making the camera more convenient to carry around. I am eager to try the lens. This is one of the first photos I have taken with it.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Confounders, mediators, and colliders

  Confounding is a distortion of the estimated effect of an exposure on an outcome. The distortion is caused by a confounder that impacts both exposure and outcome. Exposure <- Confounder -> Outcome An observed exposure effect may then reflect the effect of the confounder rather than exposure. For example, when studying the effect of alcohol consumption on cardiovascular disease risk, prior health status, is a confounder if it affects both alcohol consumption and the risk of a cardiovascular event. Confounding can be dealt with in two ways. The first is to perform an experiment with randomised assignment of subjects to exposure and a control group. The advantage with this strategy is that it prevents against confounding from all confounders, known as well as unknown. However, the disadvantage is that it cannot be used to investigate effects of harmful exposures as that would be unethical and in many cases practically impossible. Other disadvantages are that trials are expensi...
Read more

Frequentists and Bayesians

Followers of today's two main traditions of statistical inference are known as frequentist and Bayesian. Ronald Fisher attempted during the 1930s to develop a third school called fiducial inference (1), but this was broadly considered controversial and do not play a major role today. The fundamental difference between frequentists and Bayesians is that they define probability in different ways. For a frequentist, a probability is an objective measure, a long-run relative frequency. For example, a fair coin has probability 0.5 of heads because, across a very large number of comparable tosses, half are heads, and a drug lowering blood pressure has an objectively measurable average effect among the patients taking the drug. The central limit theorem, which states that as the sample size increases, the distribution of sample means tends to approximate a normal distribution, is essential in frequentist inference. A Bayesian, on the other hand, sees probability as a subjective measure, a...
Read more

Randomisation and alternation in clinical trials

  In early clinical trials patients were allocated to treatment and control groups by alternation, i.e. patients were assigned to the treatment group and control group in a strict order. The advantage with this method was that it produced groups with equal size. The two groups would also be fairly compared if the order of the patients included in the trial was random. However, the group allocation for a patient was predictable, which could potentially introduce selection bias into the trial's outcome through differential invitations to participate. The only way to avoid this issue was, of course, to make the group assignment concealed, which necessitated a non-systematic group assignment sequence. D'Arcy Hart (1) describes the development with two trials from the 1940s. The first one investigating the effects of patulin (a mycotoxin) on the common cold in 1943-1944 with strict alternation. The second one, having a randomised group assignment, investigating the effects of strept...
Read more