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: LUGnuts & NIKnuts (was Leicaflex vs Nikon F)
From: Alex Hurst <>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 22:33:05 +0000

Lucien & I wrote re Nikkors:
>>And some of them like the 85/1.8 and the 105/2.5 can give even Leitz glass
>>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 Nikkor.
>Flat image.
>(this a personnal point of view, I don't want to start a discussion about

Heaven forbid! Maybe you got a Friday 105. Mine is excellent - possibly the
best of the lot in terms of contrast and definition (and also a bargain)
>>That said, I can nearly always tell which shots I've taken with my M2 and
>>M3s, and which with my venerable F and F2s. They're both equally crisp,
>>the rendition of the Nikkors is a little more clinical and less plastic.
>Ah ! you see.

Yup - that's the point. They're much the same, but different. It's not so
much a question of 'edge', rather more of 'feel' - and that's very much a
matter of personal preference.
>BTW I use also a F2 & AF Nikon + various Nikkor

So do I, Hans Pahlen and a number of others. There's nothing in the rules
which says you can't be a LUGnut and a NIKnut concurrently. In fact, I
often take out one of each when I'm shooting.

Like the man said, "You're never alone with schizophrenia" :-?



Alex Hurst
Nr. Cork

Tel: +353 21 543 328 (H)
     +352 21 270 907 (W)

Fax: +353 21 271 248
Home website:
Business website: