Re: [Leica] Zoom completes system

["claire" <clairetm@singnet.com.sg>]

Dear Dave.....

I've heard good comments about this 80-200/f4 from other sources as
well....... but do U find it a tad too slow for use... ?  Does this aspect
ever pose a hindrance to U ? How would U deal with this problem  other than
using your rather well equipped M system for low lite situations ?

I don't have a chance to use this lens , but I guess the f4 would cause it
to be rather dim thru the finder..... what are your experiences with this
aspect ?

Thanks
TMLee




>It's been some time since I've posted on the LUG but I wanted to share
>this.
>
>I purchased a new 80-200/4 several months ago. I was concerned at first
>because it was somewhat of an impulse purchase. I've had my eye on a
>180/2.8 for some time. When I went in to purchase the 180 I found a used
>80-200/4. Someone had purchased an R outfit and returned everything to the
>dealer, so it was "new/used".   I've always liked the 180 focal length,
>having owned and used the latest Nikon and Contax. I've never been a fan of
>zooms, but things aren't what they once were. The new Leica 80-200/4 is
>spectacular.  It performs well wide open throughout the zoom range.
>Focusing is smooth as silk. I especially like the fact that the front
>element doesn't turn on zooming or focusing, since I mainly shoot color in
>my R system and I use a polorizing filter quite often. The only complaint I
>have is the 60mm filter size. I have some very nice 62mm filters. I bought
>a 60-62 step-up ring, which was vastly overpriced (limited production I was
>told) and I've already lost it.
>
>I struggled for quite some time deciding whether to buy a new 180/2.8 or a
>used 180/4. I had a 2X. I had ideas to  use it with the 180/2.8 for a
>360/5.6. But in reality my old 400/5.6 Telyt performs well for those rare
>times when I need a long lens. I ended up trading the 2X in on the 80-200.
>I'm saying this because the 80-200 turned out to be a great purchase,
>better than I could have imagined. I use it far more than I would have used
>a 180. Yes it's a little larger than the 180, but I don't carry my 90/2
>Summicron R so my bag weights about the same. The Leica lens is more
>expensive than other brands, but I do think that construction justifies
>some of the higher price tag. I've briefly used both Canon and Nikon AF
>(70)80-200s and neither one impressed me as much as the Leica lens.
>
>My current system is pretty simple. I have an R7, 28/2.8, 50/2, and 80-200
>(I never carry the 400). I compliment it with an M6, 21/2.8 ASPH, 35/2 and
>50/1.4 (for low light). Throw in my T2 and I have a system that I've wanted
>for years; it's boring but functional. I'd like to get a 100/2.8 but for
>now I still have a Contax 60/2.8 for occasional Macro work. The Leica
>system is relatively compact. I can mix and match depending. The one lens
>that made everything complete was the 80-200.
>
>Ninety percent of what I now shoot I scan and print digitally. I still like
>Leica glass.
>
>Dave
>