Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 06:24 PM 10/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >Jim Brick wrote: > ><<<This I really do not understand (not your statement, the fact that this >was not a popular lens) why.>>>> > >Hi Jim, > >I think it just wasn't fast enough for many of the Leica sports or news >photographers who required to shoot indoors often. Or night action games. I >used one during the Winter Olympics at Lake Placid in 1980 and I could >never get the right feel of it, so never pursued getting one. I really >wanted a faster lens and knew that a 280 or 300 2.8 or 2 was in the works. > >ted Sounds reasonable. I don't do sports, mostly still stuff on a tripod where the max f/stop makes little difference. However, I have used it for surfers, sea creatures, and the like with much success. Still always on a tripod. This is probably why they make so many different lenses. Three 180's, three 35's, yikes! Everyone has their preferences. Thanks Ted, Jim