Summicron-M 35/2, fourth version (the last non-ASPH one). I never found a 35 (or 35-equivalent) the rendering of which I liked as much as I did the one from this lens.

I'm a big fan of optical viewfinders. Of course they are not perfect for everything (think of extreme focal lengths), but Fuji's hybrid viewfinder on their X-Pro series cameras solved that problem. They really got the system right on the X-Pro1 and X-Pro2, where the OVF had a switchable magnification. On the X-Pro3 they dropped that feature (I assume to save a few cents per camera), making the OVF unusable for the 18mm lenses (my most-used focal length on APS-C) and only barely usable for the 23mm lenses.

As the great Billy Joel sang: "a young man is the king of every kingdom that he sees"

No problem at all.

What drives me crazy is that while in almost all lens reviews there is a section about bokeh, it inevitably only shows pictures taken at the widest aperture. For practical shooting I'm more interested in the look of the oof areas stopped down. For instance, I often shoot a 35mm lens at around f/4 or f/5.6 (and BTW haven't so far found one that matches the bokeh qualities of the legendary Leica Summicron-M 35/2 IV).

I always loved the finder on my Leica M6 bodies, although focusing fast, longish lenses like the 75/1.4 Summilux-M was a challenge. Fuji later introduced switchable finder magnifications on their X-Pro1 and X-Pro2 cameras, which is a feature I truly like. For whatever reason (well, probably cost) they dropped it on the X-Pro3, making the camera's OVF more or less unusable with my most-used focal length, 18mm (28 mm-e). This was a dealbreaker for me, so I stayed with the X-Pro2. [Don't you hate it when a cameramaker gets something truly right, and then changes it? The late Burt Keppler of Popular Photography magazine said that the more cameras you review, the more of those instances you'll discover. His "perfect camera" was a mashup of features from various cameras he had reviewed over the years, many of which were defunct. --Mike]

Hi Mike, it seems you keep spelling the former German dictator's name as "Adolph Hitler". In fact it was "Adolf Hitler".

>>Should I review a medium-format digital camera?<< Is the pope catholic?

I'm very sorry to read that Ted Grant passed away. We met online at the CompuServe Photoforum back in the 90s. When I was in Seattle on business in '98 or '99, I discovered that I could fly to Vancouver Island, where Ted lived, on a floatplane for very little money. So I did, and we spent a great time together. I got his photo book about the medical profession, "This is our work - The legacy of Sir William Osler", which is a true classic by now.

It's hard to decide on a single musician, but if I had to, it would be Al Jarreau.

>>Of course, I'd be even happier with the 23mm Fujicron (which I don't own yet)<< I'd love to read your comparison of said lens to the Fuji 23/1.4 once you get your hands on one.

And I always thought that my Zeiss 35/1.4 ZF.2 was big and heavy for a lens of that focal length. Turns out it weighs in at 'only' 890 g. BTW I hate using it on my Nikon Z7. While the image quality is great, the whole contraption is so front-heavy it isn't fun anymore.

With your expertise in all thngs bokeh I'd be surprised if you liked the 56/1.2 R. I replaced mine with the APD version and never looked back.

I've always said that zooms offer one degree of freedom too many for me.

The 90/2 is a very cool lens. I never liked the bokeh of the 56/1.2 R. In fact I traded it in for the 56/1.2 APD, which is a lot nicer in this discipline.

Did you get the regular 56 or the APD version? I had the regular version first and truly hated its bokeh wide open at close distances. The APD is in a very different league.

Film: 28 (1976 - 2004) Digital: 15 (2004 - 2019)

Got my copy last week and love it!

The Oberwerth brand is named after the Oberwerth district of the city of Koblenz in Germany as this is where the owners of the company live.

I absolutely agree with your opinion on "L'histoire de France".

>>I've always had good contacts at B&H...<< I would think Henry Posner, who always was very helpful on the old CompuServe Photoforum (and still is today, albeit in other places on the Internet) is missing from your list.

You're absolutely right about his work being unfinished. I would certainly enjoy looking at some more of his Hamtramck photos.

>>In my view, the digital M's are not an updating of the M camera concept, not an evolution of the M camera concept, and not an improvement of the M camera concept. Nor are they digital cameras with a usefully different form-factor.<< True words.

1. Rangefinder (that's why I used Leicas in the film days) 2. Fuji X-Pro2

In fact, grainier films look sharper than fine-grain films... Kodachrome 200 was a great example of that. Even pictures taken with the non-ASPH Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 wide open looked pretty sharp on that film.