Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree, Ted. While testing the 16 mm on my R8 at the store, I was amazed about its reach on the left and right but was rather dismayed about the excessive bilateral curvature. If I ever purchase the 16 mm, I'll definitely buy it used, for yesterday I read several adds in Shutterbug listing it for a third of its cost new and the difference would permit me to buy a lifetime supply of undies for cleaning my lenses. Unfortunately, nowhere did I see a listing for a used 15 mm (sigh!). Now, if I could only eradicate the sudden itch I've developed for the 105-280 mm f/4.2 Vario-Elmar R lens after testing it at Samy's yesterday! So easy to change focal length and focus with the left hand...truly an outstanding Solms creation! Ted Grant wrote: > >Yes, Jim...Zeiss-based indeed, but priced at $5,995, whereas the 16 mm is > >priced at $2,495!!!!>>>>>>>> > > Hi Terry, > > It's no big deal. The 16mm is a happy lens for a while until you get sick > of the curvature all the time. There isn't any comparison to the 15. > > The 16 for performance is OK if you want those straight lines always in a > curve. > > But if you want class images there is only one lens like it! The 15mm > regardless of the price. > > I guess I have to say, if you don't have the money to play in a high stakes > lens game, don't make comparisons 16 to 15 as there isn't any when it comes > to quality. > > The 16 is a lens from a crackerjack box and the 15mm is out of a diamondbox! :) > > ted > > Ted Grant > This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler. > http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant