Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>>Please, one more time, why is the Leica R superior to other SLR cameras? Dale<<< Dale, They're not. It's the lenses that are superior. If you can't see the difference, or don't care, then there is little reason for using Rs instead of one of the oftentimes cheaper, more capable, and more ergonomic Japanese AF cameras. If, however, you're addicted to the very finest lenses, then the Leica R line is, overall, the world's best--yes, folks, even better than the M line <g>. Other lens lines have specific designs that approach (or in rare cases exceed) Leica's equivalent offerings (the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/2 Macro, for instance, is a better lens than the Leica 50mm Summicron-M IMHO), and the Leica R line does have its relative weak points, but, for the most part, the best R lenses are the _ne plus ultra_ of what is available to consumers in the 35mm format. --Mike P.S. To Jim Brick: I agree with you about filters, with the caveat that it only really makes a difference with the best lenses and presumes that the photographer cares about--and knows enough to recognize--optimum optical quality. With some lenses a filter will add unacceptable flare or reflections, or cause contrast reduction, and in some other cases its effect may not be noticeable. But as many LUGgers have no doubt discovered, the better the lens, the more likely it will be that you won't want a filter on it. To quote Kornelius Fleischer of Carl Zeiss, "No filter ever _improved_ the technical performance of any lens."