[Leica] Re: Leica Quality Control and Durability

[drodgers@nextlink.net]

Iain

You make some very interesting observations in your excellent post about
Leica durability. Over the past several days I've been sharing private
e-mails with a couple of LUGers regarding equipment choices. It gave me
opportunity to my assess needs by evaluating what I use and why.

The 50 is my favorite lens in 35mm format. Second is the 21. My favorite
subject is people in everyday life. Shorter lenses force me to work in more
closely and to be more involved with my subject. I tend to be more of an
observer when I use longer lenses. I actually feel more comfortable working
from a distance, but my photographs generally aren't as good. The 21 allows
me to work closely but still capture environment. The 50 feels like a
telephoto after using a 21.

I can't say enough about the 50 Summicron, which is the only R lens I
currently own. The lens is fairly new, though I use it on an old SL body. I
bought it the SL out of curiosity, but aside from the slow older meter
(which I find adequate for b/w) I like it much better than any other manual
SLR body I've owned, including the Nikon FM2n and the Contax S2b. The SL
image with the 50 Summicron is remarkable -- bright, full-frame, zero
magnification.

I'm reluctant to expand to other R lenses, because I don't use SLR's that
often. Further, I already own a number of Contax Zeiss SLR lenses. I'd
rather invest in my M system, since I tend to use rangefinders far more
than SLRs. However, since I sold my 50/2 Summicron M last year and bought a
50 Summilux M there aren't any M lenses that I really need.

I only use three lenses, the 50/1.4 Summilux, the 21/2.8 ASPH, and to a
less extent the the 28/2.8 Elmarit. I don't use my 35/2 Summicron since I
got the 50 Summilux. I use the 90/2 very little and my 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit
even less. The 35/1.4 Aspheric and the Noctilux are both interesting, but
I'm not sure how much I'd use them since I have the 50/1.4.

Dave