Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/27

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bokeh controversy, 250/4 lens
From: "Wilber Jeffcoat" <wilber@jeffcoatphotography.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:54:24 -0500
References: <20001226211258.13788.cpmta@c014.sfo.cp.net> <000901c0700a$6a31b400$aa6b193f@oemcomputer> <4.1.20001227125757.018141c0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com>

What should I look to pay for the newer unit. The one that got away was the
older unit, so now I don't feel so bad.
Cheers Wilber
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brick" <jim_brick@agilent.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>; <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:02 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: Bokeh controversy, 250/4 lens


> There are two 250/4's The older, fatter, heavier, series 8 filter version
> which did not get good reviews. Made until 1980. And the newer version
from
> 1980 until 1994 which is lighter, thinner, and E67, and is a stellar
performer.
>
> Jim
>
>
> >Wilber Jeffcoat wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>Thank you, so this then is a characteristic of the Leica lens and
really
> >> has
> >> nothing to do with the focal length. Next 250 f4 I see is mine.<<<<<
> >
> At 07:36 AM 12/27/00 -0800, Ted wrote:
> >Hi Wilber,
> >
> >If you find a f4.0 250 grab it quick as it's a beauty of a lens.  I had
one
> >many
> >years ago and in "my great wisdom" when I bought the 280 2.8 I sold the
250!
> >Dumb mistake, but we only learn what we've lost after it's gone and wish
we
> >hadn't been so stupid in our eagerness to be "lens efficient!" :-(
> >
> >It's a winner so look hard.
> >ted
>

In reply to: Message from Doug Herr <merlin@flyingemu.com> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh controversy)
Message from "Wilber Jeffcoat" <wilber@jeffcoatphotography.com> (Re: [Leica] Bokeh controversy)
Message from Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com> ([Leica] Re: Bokeh controversy, 250/4 lens)