Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/13[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Received: from lisa.servtech.com (lisa.servtech.com [184.108.40.206]) by typhoon.servtech.com (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id UAA17409 for <email@example.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:17:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mejac.palo-alto.ca.us by lisa.servtech.com ; 13 SEP 96 20:17:10 EDT Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA19637; Fri, 13 Sep 96 10:29:16 -0700 Received: by mejac.palo-alto.ca.us id AA19631; Fri, 13 Sep 96 10:28:54 -0700 Received: from JMBM40-Message_Server by JMBM.COM with Novell_GroupWise; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:29:33 -0700 Message-ID: <s239378d.002@JMBM.COM> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Original-Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:27:49 -0700 From: Joel Tlumak <JT@JMBM.COM> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Re M 3 Wide Angle -Reply Content-Length: 540 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org I'd like to endorse Marc's comments on the 35mm f/2.8 Jupiter 12. Since the glass is recessed, it has in effect a built-in lens shade, I've had no absolutely no flare problems, the lens is very sharp, coated and very inexpensive. It is my standard 35mm for my Leica/Canon screwmounts. And while a light lens, it does not feel flimsy. It seems to be readily available, although Woodmere has always overpriced this lens, asking as much as $300 for it; a price of $100 to $150 is the more likely reasonable estimate of its market worth.