Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hello Friends, Hans Pahlen recently named some book titles about Leica-M, Osterloh and Bower. I agree: both books are great reading. Both books, however, are not quite 'objective' in comparing the M's to SLR's. Osterloh and Bower keep suggesting that Leica M lenses are faster than SRL lenses. That's okay for Noctilux (but who can afford it), but the other lenses all have their equivalents among SLR. Then the only interpretation of their claim can be, that most SLR lenses have to be stopped far more than M lenses to get the same results. I like working with my 1963 M2 and my 1973 Summicron 2/50, sometimes at full opening; mostly stopped down to f5,6, and I get marvellous results. I also like working with my Nikon FM2 with the standard 1.8/50, sometimes at full opening; mostly stopped down to f5.6, and I get marvellous results. The difference is not dictated by the kind of camera I use, but by the circumstances: I use the M2 when I want to be 'included' and involved; I use my FM2 when I want to be the outsider looking in. (By the way, my most frequently used lens with FM2 is an old 3,5/55 micro-Nikkor, one of the top lenses of Nikon.) I think, the argument of speedy lenses as opposed to SLR's is bullshit. Important is, that Leica allows you to use longer hand-held exposure times, up to 1/8 sec. I like to hear your comments Geert Vinke The Netherlands