Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:12 pm +0200 14/5/00, Henry Ambrose wrote: >> >>> >>> The 55/3.5 Micro is a step down from Leica glass. I've used this >>> lens, both single-coated and multi-coated, and the 55/2.8 Micro >>> AIS, and neither can come near the image quality the Leica 60/2.8 >>> Macro lens gives. >snipped >>> >>> Doug Herr >>> Sacramento >> >>Doug - I'd challenge you to tell the difference between photos taken with >>the Nikon 60 2.8 macro AF and it's Leica non-AF counterpart.:-) >> >>B. D. >>> >> >Comparing a 3 or 4 generation old design to a newer one is not fair. The >60 2.8 Macro is probably the best lens that Nikon makes or has made in >and around "normal" focal length. I use the 60 (and 105 Macro) daily and >intensively. (and before the 60 the 55 2.8) The 60 Nikon is much better >than the 55. Flatter field, sharper, less distortion. > >So, does anyone have real world experience comparing the 60 Nikon and the >60 Leica? >It might be interesting to hear about this. > >Henry Ambrose In my limited experience (I do not copy flat subjects!), a 60/2.8 Macro Elmarit, a 60/2.8 Macro Planar, a 60/2.8 AF Nikkor, and a 50/2.8 AF Minolta were all hard to fault despite some character differences. However, lack of floating elements in Leica and Zeiss should have limitations with reducing abberations both in macro and infinity settings (Obviously so in their MTF charts). This is just theoretical.... I use a Macro Elmartit 60mm as an everyday lens and am just happy with it.