Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Lucien, Who knows what others regard as sacred, but I take the point that the = lenses are the place where the quality is imported into the picture, and = that up until the R8 (and preceding the R3) the reflex line was always = partly overshadowed by its Minolta heritage. I still question the wisdom of my (our?) quest though, in the search for = = a true Leica lens, that is. At the recent LHS Leica Day here in England, = I showed some concert photos, 20"x16" taken on the Zeiss Sonnar which = seemed to lack for nothing. I suppose a better truth might be that I = don't yet realise what they could have contained if taken with a Leica = lens. I don't notice anything in the photos that I take with my Leica = lenses that was missing from the Sonnar pics. However, I have to = struggle to imagine what that could have been added with a 180/2.8 = Elmarit-R. Maybe my processing isn't as good as it could be? Is this heresy? Am I now a 'non-believer'? Should I spend =9C550 GBP on = something that will only effectively provide a better name tag in my = camera bag? I suppose only I can answer that... Jem ---------- From: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Sent: 30 April 1998 11:54 To: KIMEJ44; 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us' Subject: Re: [Leica] what happened?/180.2.8 lens jeremy.kime wrote: >Nice to hear that I'm not the only one who cajoles >other lenses onto the sacred Leica bodies! Until now, I was thinking that in the R "program" only the lenses were sacred. ;-) = Lucien