RE: [Leica] The 90's: f/2 v. f/2.8

[Jim Laurel <jplaurel@microsoft.com>]

A friend of mine came over yesterday with his 90 f2.8, which he uses
primarily for landscapes.  It's a bit smaller than my 90 f2.0, and made in
Germany rather than Canada, not that this matters.  I've found my 90 f2 to
be an outstanding lens, far superior to the Zeiss 90mm f2.8 G-mount lens
that Pop Photo said was the best lens they had ever tested.  While the f2.0
lens is nicer for portraits due to a wider max aperture, I don't think it's
any worse than the 2.8 for everything else, as you've heard.  Both lenses
are exceptional.

The 2.0 lens weighs around 100 grams (I think) than the 2.8 lens, uses a
55mm filter, and is a bit larger in diameter, but not much.  It's also a
little more expensive.  My advice is that if you can tolerate the extra
weight and cost, go for the f2 lens.  That extra stop makes quite a
difference in critical lighting.

- -Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	COLBYG@ULV.EDU [SMTP:COLBYG@ULV.EDU]
> Sent:	Friday, March 06, 1998 5:41 AM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	[Leica] The 90's: f/2 v. f/2.8
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 	I've solicited opinions from everyone I know, including my son's
> first
> grade teacher. Probably should have turned here first...
> 
> 	I'd like to purchase a new 90mm lens for the M camera. Can't decide
> between the f/2 and f/2.8. I'm told the f/2 is better for portraits and
> the
> f/2.8 is better for everything else.
> 	Which is easier, faster to focus? I don't have access to try them
> myself.
> 
> -Gary