Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]They have it covered considering the Leica is an APO and the best 180 yet from Leica. Reports have it besting the 180 3.4 APO. That is doing something. Cheers Wilber. GFE "B. D. Colen" wrote: > I haven't used the Leica 180 2,8, but it would have to get up pretty early > to best the Nikon 180 2.8 ED....which is a really amazingly sharp lens, easy > to handle, with very nice BOW KAH! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Julian > > Thomas > > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:54 PM > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > > Subject: Re: 180 crap?? (was:Re: [Leica] Re: Best Hadow and Highlight > > Metering) > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Doug Herr" <telyt560@cswebmail.com> > > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:11 PM > > Subject: 180 crap?? (was:Re: [Leica] Re: Best Hadow and Highlight > > Metering) > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious which 180 qualifies as crap ... I understand the expensive > > part. > > > > > > > Sorry Doug, a bit of a too-quick email. I was doing a lot of theatre stuff > > and wanted a 2.8 180 on a mechanical body with a good spot meter. I've > > always used OMs but loved the R6. At the time the leica 2.8 very stiff and > > awkward to use. I tried both and the Olympus was sharper and > > easier to focus > > and handhold at low light levels. I couldn't justify the price of a leica, > > especially considering I was shooting without flash, usually at > > 30/60th sec > > wide open on tmax 3200. Neither gave me the same quality as the Nikon 2.8, > > but the Nikon bodies were just too noisy. This all about 10 years > > ago before > > the leica asph 180. > > > > Julian > > > >