Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:16 PM 9/20/96 GMT, you wrote: >or Canon SLR in addition. While I prefer the Nikon due to what I have heard >is slightly better overall construction quality and optical consistency >across the line, I am concerned about the fact that Nikons and Leicas focus >in the opposite direction. In addition, the aperture ring is in the reverse >direction (Canon is like Leica in these respects). That's pure baloney you are hearing. If anything, Canon's lenses are better optically, or at least the equal. And the budget lenses in both lines are rather weak. The Nikon line doesn't have anything like some of the L series lenses for construction, and in some cases optical performance. The 300 2.8 EF lens is second in performance only to the Zeiss Tele Apo Tessar, and only slightly, and it's slightly ahead of the 280 2.8 Apo Telyt. (First two versions). Nikon only has an advantage in fill flash and regular flash, and in the variety of lenses available, but as for AF lenses, Canon still has them beat. =========== Eric Welch Grants Pass, OR Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.