Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I don't happen to agree with all of your specific >assessments of lenses from various lines. However, I do agree that most lens >lines have standout lenses and mediocre ones (some lines are more inconsistent >than others) As I wrote in reply to Eric, I was keeping a distinction between SLR and RF lenses, fast and slow, on my list. I am interested to hear where we differ on my list as it's always interesting to hear your thoughts. On the SLR 35/2's: I'd gathered from the world at large that the EOS 35/2 was the second standard bearer, behind the R 'cron lens (though my experience with these SLR 35/2's is limited to one and it isn't R or EOS) . No? >However, I stand by my general assessment of R >lenses. Try this: make a field trial of the Leica R 35mm f/2 vs. the AF-Nikkor >35mm f/2.-snip- I think the difference is quite clear (at >least with black-and-white film) and illustrates perfectly what I'm talking >about. Again, each person has to decide for him- or herself whether it matters; >ultimately, lens quality doesn't have very much to do with the success or >failure of a photograph. I'l l take your word for it I suppose. I think I'm done buying into new 35mm systems that cost as much as the R's can (and do). It seems that the 645 is the smallest 'job' camera I've got and the 35's need to earn some more keep. Besides, I've always wanted to shoot with the Olympus 90 macro and I hear their 50 is pretty good too <s>. Good to have you around Mike. Regards, Danny Gonzalez