Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Except Leica lenses and that's the more important. Alex Hurst wrote >On the other hand, look at the relative prices. Excellent old Nikkors fo= r >the F are available at very reasonable prices - probably a third to a ha= lf >what you'd pay for the Leica equivalent. Equivalent ?? ;-) >And some of them like the 85/1.8 and the 105/2.5 can give even Leitz gla= ss >a run for its money. As I sayed here before, I don't agree with you about the Nikkor 105/2,5. I tried it versus a Summicron R 90/2, and was disapointed about the Nikko= r. Flat image. = (this a personnal point of view, I don't want to start a discussion about= it) >That said, I can nearly always tell which shots I've taken with my M2 an= d >M3s, and which with my venerable F and F2s. They're both equally crisp, but >the rendition of the Nikkors is a little more clinical and less plastic.= Ah ! you see. :-) BTW I use also a F2 & AF Nikon + various Nikkor Lucien BELGIUM