Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes, but the 135/2.8 R lens is one stop brighter and what a nice lens, especially with a leicaflex! Thib. >I have now looked up the prices. The 14167 M-R-adapter costs $200 new in >Sweden, and the same dealer also has a mint 16464 for less than $100. >Cheaper than to buy a 135/2.8-R lens. > >And I don't need the 16471 (only for close-up work), right? > >/Stefan > >>---------- >>Fr=E5n: Marc James Small[SMTP:msmall@roanoke.infi.net] >>Skickat: den 14 januari 1998 04:49 >>Till: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us >>Ang=E5ende: =C4Leica=C5 Tele-Elmar Lens Head on Viso >> >>Thanks, Marvin -- you are correct: both the 16464 and 16471 are= necessary. >> >>Argh. My Leica literature is buried away, but the chart for the Viso III >>as reprinted in Laney &al does, indeed, show that both are necessary. I >>was wrong! And I wasn't thinking. =20 >> >>Marc >> >> >>msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 >>Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir! >> >> > >