Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/06/23

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

Subject: [Leica] THIS IS SHEILA JOHNSON
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)
Date: Mon Jun 23 17:14:45 2008

Oh well I suppose you are right on the cost factor. Accept I bought mine
when it was new to the world and it was the first or second Noctilux sold in
Canada where they were made. :-) I still use it both on the M8 and M6!

Trust me it wasn't that much in those days.

But we're not here to compare the lenses because I'd use one or the other or
both just for the hell of it to cause mischief. :-) "Like how did he do
that?"

ted

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Philip
Forrest
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 3:27 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] THIS IS SHEILA JOHNSON

 

I think the Noctilux is just too good and won't glow like the

Canon .95. Sometimes lenses can be made too well and the Nocti vs. .95

Canon is perfect example. Also, at 1/10 the price, the Canon wins in my

book.

PhilFo

 

_______________________________________________

Leica Users Group.

See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

 

 

-- 

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG. 

Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1514 - Release Date: 6/23/2008
7:17 AM

 


In reply to: Message from photo.forrest at earthlink.net (Philip Forrest) ([Leica] THIS IS SHEILA JOHNSON)