不错

有时间改日翻译一下

21-35 DMR

飞燕草（三）

飞燕草（二）

承蒙夸奖，能得您喜欢就好，学习就免了，拙作误人啊。
有几年都错过拍摄牡丹的时候，今年天气连续阴雨，等上好天气去的时候又大都败了，2010年且留影这几张习作纪念了。
送小片三张，遇你那天拍的。
飞燕草（一）

洋文，看不大懂啊。

老外的感受
Vick, I have that lens, got it as part of a package deal. It is esactly as Ronald says, a very good lens. Distortion is _much less_ than with the Sigma-made/built 28-70 which I also have. The 70-210 was made by Minolta using the same optics as they used in their own mount, though I've seen it written that the Leica version has Leica coatings but I've never seen any authoritative proof of it in the form of something in writing from Leica. So if what you're looking for is excellent performance, it's a keeper. But if you're looking for a special Leica signature, or heads above the rest performance, you won't see it unless you make up your mind to. Probably the 80-200 f/4 in current production has some optical improvements, and if you (like me)prefer 2-ring zooms, it's got that. To install/remove a filter or adjust a polarizing filter on the 70-210 you need to zoom back to 70mm so the shade can be retracted. However the 70-210 is about 300g (that's what, a little over half a pound?) lighter, so given that plus its excellent performance I'm keeping mine as a travel lens. I think I've seen them going for around $400, that's about half of what the least I've seen an 80-200 go for. Can't go wrong unless you're really bothered by the fact its basically a Minolta lens.

The 80-200/4.5, 75-200/4.5 and 70-210/4 were all Minolta lenses transplanted into R mounts. The 70-210/4 looked almost like a real Leica knock-off. All these lenses, especially the latter, performed as well as the best Japanese zooms of their days, but the newest (the 70-210/4) was a 1984 design. Performance drops at the long end, there is some distortion, and overall contrast is lower and flare tendency higher than today's best zooms. The 80-200/4 is a Leica design. Only the production is done by Kyocera. After more than a year using this lens my 90/2.8 and 180/2.8 are almost un-used these days, and only occasionally do I pack the 90/2. It's an absolutely magnificent lens. Better performing than the 80-200/2.8 AF-S Nikkor. The older Minolta-based zooms sell in the $500-$800 range, whereas you can get the same optics in a Minolta mount and a Minolta body together for half that cost. OTOH at around $1100-1200, a mint, used 80-200/4 ROM is one of the 2 true bargains in the R system (the other being the 35-70/4 ROM).

I purchased a used 75-200mm Leica zoom in 1986. I was satisfied with the lens performance, but had always read/heard that the lens was a Leitz-Minolta compromise; whatever. About 7 years ago, I purchased a late 180/2.8 and performed some tests projected and louped against the zoom. I saw little difference, and returned the 180 lens. About a year later while in contact with some Leica technical reps, I discovered that this individual also used the 75-200mm zoom. I was impressed and surprised. I guess the kicker was when at about the same timeframe, I was speaking with Jim Lager, the well known and respected Leica expert, he told me that he ALSO uses this lens. At that point I decided to stick with the lens until it was no longer useable or fixable. Now I suppose that the new 80-200 zoom is a better lens, but I also suppose that it isn't 4 times better even though it costs 4 times as much the older zoom. Most people will not see or appreciate the differences except under the most extreme and, generally impractical, enlargement sizes. I'd recommend purchasing the 75-200mm lens if you can get one affordably.

For what its worth Ive been using a Leitz Wetzlar 75-200 f4.5 on my Leica RE for about a year. I purchased it in mint condition for 400.00 and felt it has been one of the better buys Ive managed in my photo gear acquisitions. Its compact, light, uses 55mm filters, and is very very sharp based on the 8x12 color prints Ive made from 400ASA film. It is sharper than the old (fat) style 250f4 Telyt that I used to use by a good margin. I admit the new 80-200 f4 is a superb lens by all accounts, Ive been tempted to trade up, but even used it costs three to four times as much. I would be glad to send some JPGs to anyone who is interested, scanned negs from the 75-200 zoom. If anyone has comparison shots with the older zooms vs the new one from Kyocera I would love to see them.

德国《彩色摄影》镜头测试报告总览

http://www.cnphotos.net/news/news/syqc/other/2005/08/27/2005827193746.htm

这三幅牡丹拍的太好了。值得学习啊。

对不起，构图不好不是相机的错，是摄影者的审美意识，或一时的不注意等原因所致

其实我们买镜头是为了用，因为我们不是收藏家，把现有的资金用到极致，也就是用一定的资金买尽量好的镜头，然后了解这颗镜头的特性，扬长避短，充分发挥镜头的优点，让镜头后的那颗头多发挥作用，在摄影的过程中来享受摄影，这一过程会很很多东西值得我们去体会，品位，判断，提高，总结，其乐无穷。我想这应该就是发烧友的最大快乐只所在吧！
还有一点我认为也很重要，必要的后期处理能力，因为再好的相机也有不如意的地方，比如白平衡不准，爆光不十分理想，构图不精确，色彩过于艳丽或溢出或饱和度不够等等，可以作适度的修正以使作品更加完美，出彩。
注意：是适度的后期。不是像某些人所说的用PS P出徳味来，也不是弄出一些光怪陆离的效果。
这些又属于另外一个范畴了，当然也有人对此津津乐道。

牡丹图三幅

没啥好题材，只能拍些小玩意过过瘾了。

花不多的钱能够亲手体验感知这些老镜头的特色特长，得益同时也是莫大的享受。是的，我们只要了解手中每个镜头的特色特长，根据拍摄主题选择合适的镜头，发挥镜头专长，完全可以代替昂贵的顶极镜头，最终后头决定前头。

拍的不错，就是色温——白平衡，好像不是十分理想。
可以后期修正一下

废片也比你的强不少！！！
你不喜欢德系镜头，可以走开，又没有人请你来。

同意楼主观点，用了徕卡蔡司这些“副厂”头之后都不想再玩原厂头了。

Canon 40D+Leica R 35-70/4 Rom后期版本
云南大理崇圣寺三塔

Canon 40D+Leica R 35-70/4 Rom后期版本
云南瑞丽

信息同上

器材同上

好帖,美图不少!

也顶张拙片:Canon 40D+Leica R 35-70/4 Rom后期版本

云南勐焕大金塔

你的出片是用适马XH拍的？玩过N个适马头也从没将片子拍成这样的。

中间那张明显是过暴了，另外两张在我显示器上看层次还是很丰富的。
另外在我的显示器上看阁下拍的人像很灰很灰，层次的确很丰富，不过不讨人喜欢哦。

萝卜青菜各有所爱，阁下的观点部分认同，部分不认同，
每个人的口味不同，您对色彩没啥感觉那也没办法，但如果说德系日系都是半斤八两这个似乎也太离谱了点，我想不如说德系日系各有各的特点更合适一些。
德头里也有狗头，日头里也有牛头，总的来说还是一分钱一分货，照片拍的好与不好我想主要不在用什么头，还是看水平。
而且菜鸟偶尔也能拍出好片，高手也不是PP都好。
用好自己手里的头就好，没必要在这较劲。

你看你人物的脸，没有任何层次，一片白。

按照你的逻辑你是德国鬼子？呵呵。我觉得什么德系日系都是半斤八两，没有什么本质区别，你喜欢忽悠也罢，YY也罢，但是哪些自认为色彩好的片子从使用角度基本是废片。

[zx315 编辑于 2010-04-26 08:47]

看看你这几张片子，哪一张能称之为好片？？？？

你觉得死马好 ，就去用你的死马好了，没人栏你！！！
怎么看很多德头片都是经过后期加工的浓艳失真的色彩——是不是你的显示器有问题，还是你根本就不喜欢德系镜头，还是你原本就是一个纯粹的日本鬼子？？？