Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:51 PM 2/20/99 -0600, you wrote: >Actually, any of those lenses would meet anybody's standards if they >weren't being compared side by side, I suppose. So it's academic ... Exactly, and it's probably a you-pick-'em tossup even then. I have not used the Leica 400 f/2.8, but I have used the Cannon 400 2.8 EOS (not the II) and the Nikon 400 2.8 AFs. Both are superb lenses. One may pick one line over another for any variety of reasons -- AF speed, ergonomics, price, support, familiarity, reliability, etc. But I really don't think inadequacy of one of these lenses would be the reason. Both are fine lenses. This Ford v. Chevy type of rivalry has no appeal to me. They may yield differences in results, but deciding which is better is really a subjective thing. Bill