Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/11/25

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

Subject: Re: Leicaflex vs Nikon F
From: "Lucien_vD@compuserve.com" <Lucien_vD@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:34:12 -0500

>Except Leica lenses and that's the more important.

Alex Hurst wrote

>On the other hand, look at the relative prices. Excellent old Nikkors fo=
r
>the F are available at very reasonable prices - probably a third to a ha=
lf
>what you'd pay for the Leica equivalent.

Equivalent ??   ;-)

>And some of them like the 85/1.8 and the 105/2.5 can give even Leitz gla=
ss
>a run for its money.

As I sayed here before, I don't agree with you about the Nikkor 105/2,5.
I tried it versus a Summicron R 90/2, and was disapointed about the Nikko=
r.
Flat image. =

(this a personnal point of view, I don't want to start a discussion about=

it)

>That said, I can nearly always tell which shots I've taken with my M2 an=
d
>M3s, and which with my venerable F and F2s. They're both equally crisp,
but
>the rendition of the Nikkors is a little more clinical and less plastic.=


Ah ! you see.
:-)
BTW I use also a F2 & AF Nikon + various Nikkor

Lucien
BELGIUM