Re: R lenses....

[Chris Fortunko <fortunko@boulder.nist.gov>]

Mike,

I cannot afford the new 180mm Summicron. However, I did see a mint 180mm APO
Telyt, which a like. Can you comment on this lens?

I currently have a type-1 Summicron 50mm lens for my SL2. It is 25... and I
find it to be as good as my type-2 Summicron for my M camera. The new ones
are probably even better.

You commented on the new 28mm R lens being better than the new 28mm M lens.
I am curious about your evidence. I don't doubt your findings, I am just
curious as to what to look for. The older 28 R lenses were also thought to
be very good.

In general, used R lenses appear to be more affordable than M lenses. For
example, one can buy a 90mm Summicron-R for $500. The 50mm Summicrons can be
had in mint conditions for as little as $300. This is half the price of
comparable M lenses.

I am an M camera user, but recognize that SLRs are useful sometimes. I
stopped using them, because I found them difficult to focus. Later, I found
that this was caused by astigmatism in my right eye. I am now using my left
eye for focusing.

Best regards,

Chris


At 11:50 AM 12/25/96 EST, you wrote:
>Hello Chris and LUG-sters;
>
>Yesterday, Chris Fortunko wrote:
>
><<LUGs,
>
>I was informed a couple of days ago that R lenses are not selling very well.
>If so, what is the reason for this phenomenon. Certainly, the R lenses are
>very good optically. Leica/Leitz put a lot of effort into their development. 
>
>I was also told by the same person, a salesman at a Leica dealer, that 3-cam
>lenses do not work as well in SL/SL2 cameras. He has a lot of two-cam
>lenses. Perhaps, the two-cam lenses are not moving very fast either.
>
>Personally, I like the older lenses. They seem to have fewer plastic parts.
>
>Chris>>
>
>I'd like to speak to the first comment about R lens quality...in my experience
>using both M and R gear, there are R lenses that are as good as and several
>superior to that of the M camera.  Specifically the 35mm f2.0-R is better than
>the 35mm f2.0-M, the new 28mm f2.8-R is better than the new 28mm f2.8-M (by a
>slight margin), but the 50mm f2.0-R is NOT as good as the 50mm f2.0-M.  I am
>speaking from actual use in the field, not pictures of test targets.  So there
>it is...Leica has put tremendous effort in the attainment of top end quality in
>the R glass. One last thing...the 180mm f2.0-R is in my opinion, the sharpest
>tele of any make or focal lenght...period.
>
>Hope this illuminates and spawns further input regarding the often neglected
>Leica "orphan"...the R camera.  Maybe I'll need my flak jacket <g>!
>
>Michael Hintlian
>
>
>