Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's just that such cosmetic changes are really an insult to any sensibility. Now the lenses are another matter. There, my capacity of using any language I know, to describe the evolutionary progress that's taken place, is humbled and found wanting. S.d. On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:34 PM, mehrdad wrote: > do i feel a like bashing every time there is news from leica on a new > camera/lens? why is that? > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Tim Gray <tgray at 125px.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 22, 2011 at 01:31 PM +0930, Marty Deveney wrote: >> >>> It doesn't work on the M9. The rear element is too close for the >>> microlenses to correct the angle of transmission at the edges. >>> >> >> Yup. Good thing I'm on film still. Of course if I needed a 21 on the M9, >> I guess I'd look at the Zeiss 21/2.8. Again, that extra $2k for the Leica >> lens when it's about the same size as the 2.8 and has about the same >> distortion just doesn't seem worth it for me. I was really hoping it >> would >> either be smaller or have less distortion for the price. >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See >> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for >> more information >> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------- > regards, mehrdad > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information