Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]bdcolen wrote: > > Using both the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and Leica M 21 ASPH, I'll say that > there's no doubt there is less distortion with the M lens than there is > with the Nikon at 20-21 mm. That said, the Nikon does quite well. > > B. D. > I heard yesterday and don't doubt the Nikon 20 does a bit better at 20 than their latest zoom in perspective but the zoom is just as sharp if not sharper a concept I'm happy about but used to find infuriatingly heretical.. They say use the 20 fixed for architectural. (which sells for chump change) I'd rather use my 21 Elmarit Asph for the job but would pine for a Schneider 3.5 in all it's compactness. If they can make the superwide with the 38 Biogon for brownie film... why cant they make a 35mm camera a life support system for a non retrofocus superwide lens. A 21 is OK the Biogon i think translates to a 24! I guess they tried it one with the Hologon 15 camera. Mark Rabiner Portland, Oregon USA http://www.rabinergroup.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html