Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/09/13

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

Date: Sat Sep 14 00:23:02 GMT 1996
En-Route-To: tmydosh
Not-Delivered-To: !recipients due to 12 Inability To Transfer ORIGINAL MESSAGE ATTACHED (rmail: Error # 15 'Cannot create lock file')
Original-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:27:49 -0700
Original-Subject: Re: Re M 3 Wide Angle -Reply
Report-Version: 2

Received: from ( []) by (8.7.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id UAA17409 for <>; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 20:17:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from by ; 13 SEP 96 20:17:10 EDT
Received: by id AA19637; Fri, 13 Sep 96 10:29:16 -0700
Received: by 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>
Subject: Re: Re  M 3 Wide Angle -Reply
Content-Length: 540
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

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.