RE: [Leica] SLR lenses

["Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>]

Michael:

>>OK so this year I've decided I want to phase out my bloated minolta SLR
kit 
and replace it with a leaner Leica SLR kit.<< 

>>I require total mechanical operation and independence from 
batteries in my SLRs, so I've pretty much ruled out 
the electronic shuttered Rs and have decided that I want to pick up two 
nice SL2s or maybe a used R6.2 and an SL/SL2 as a backup.<<

An R6.2 would be nice. But for the money, I'd go for an R7. I know you said
that you need total mechanical operation. But the R7 is so much more
convenient than the F6.2, or the SL/SL2. The metering on the olders bodies
is suspect. OK, I suppose, if you're only shooting reversal film. But if you
ever plan to shoot trannies the newer, faster and more accurate metering is
more than just nice to have. I have an R7 and it's the best SLR body I've
ever used -- and I've used my share over the years.  The only two that come
close are the Canon F1 and the Nikon F3.  

>>Having a 50 Summicron prime in the kit is a given<< 

I have a 50/2. But I use the 35/2 as my standard lens. If I had a 60/2.8,
that would be my standard lens. But I still have a Contax 60/2.8. When I
eventually get a 60/2.8, I'll sell last of my Contax gear. The only zoom I
own is the 80-200/4. It's everything people say it is. I was told by the
Leica rep that it's APO at most focal lengths and fstops. 

I never liked the shorter zooms. They're a tad large and bulky for my taste.


>>I currently get by well with a 1:4 'macro' lens for close up images. I 
don't see me using the 100 macro prime for much other than macro work, I'm 
thinking the 180 would be a better choice. How do the two compare in your 
estimation?<<

I've always longed to own a 100/2.8. But I think the 60/2.8 would be a
better fit. Just because it doubles as a standard lens. I walked into
Glasers in Seattle to buy a 180/2.8, and I walked out with the 80-200/4.
That was several years back, and I have no regrets to this day. I feel the
zoom is much more versatile.     

>>I've read that the 80-200 doesn't work with the SL bodies? What are the 
other preferred options for that range for these cameras? I don't use the 
80-200 range for much other than wildlife and element isolation and when I 
need to compress perspective. (ie not all that often so might a longer than 
180 prime or a teleconverter for the 180 be better?)<<< 

I traded my 2x converter in on the 80-200. I used the 2x on a 90/2, which
made it a 180/4. The quality was there, but I just never warmed up to
converters. But you're right in that ROM lenses won't work on an SL without
modification. 

The R lenses I use most are the 28/2.8, 35/2, 80-200/4 and 400/5.6. I
usually only carry the first three, and an M6-50/1.4. The R system is a
great compliment to an M system. You said you needed a manual body, but I've
never regreted buying the R7. In fact, I hardly ever use my SL. 

Dave