[Leica] Which R lenses are good? Mediocre? Bad?

[Gene Duprey]

I thought the 24 Elmarit R was quite good, my copy was very sharp and well
made.  I also liked the 80 - 200 f4, and found it to be a super performer.
It is one of 2 that I still have, the other is the 90 f2.8 Elmarit R, which
I found to be my favorite lens.  I have kept the 80-200 & 90 when I sold
off my R gear a few months ago, and was planning on converting them to
mount on my Nikon D4.  The SL is making me re-think this, although it is
way to expensive for me right now.

Gene


On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Mistype - 75-200 f4.5 - an average performer, nowhere near the Nikon
> 80-200 of that era.
> Cheers
> Jayanand
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Doug Herr <wildlightphoto at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > Jayanand Govindaraj wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> > a 24mm Elmarit-R and a 75-210mm zoom - neither of which I liked very
> much.
> > <<<
> >
> > 75-200mm or 70-210mm?  These are both Minolta designs, the latter with
> some Leitz input.  The 75-200 (the older of these two) didn't impress me.
> The sharpness was OK and it has good flare control but bokeh could get
> really funky, distortion was clearly evident and its mechanical
> construction was not up to Leica standards.  The 80-200mm f/4 (A Leica
> design made by Kyocera) is a much better lens.
> >
> > Doug Herr
> > Birdman of Sacramento
> > http://www.wildlightphoto.com
> > http://doug-herr.fineartamerica.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>