Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/01/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 12:46 PM 1/29/98 +0000, you wrote: >that they didn't seem to beat the Canonet 40/1.7, in either corner sharpness or >vignetting wide open. Then again, my main concern in any testing I do is heavily Interesting. But then, it's quite a bit slower (in terms of physical dimensions of the lens). So maybe that's a reason why. Wider and faster is harder to design. But a Canonet? Wow! >I haven't used either of these primarily because I'm satisfied with the Contax lens >and the various 35's and 40's (CL, CLE, C'net, 7sII, Hexar etc.) I've amassed. Well, I'm sure it's no slouch. Zeiss doesn't make junk. But until you've used the 35 Summilux R in the field, you really can't appreciate how wonderful a lens it is. As others have pointed out there, Leica lenses don't always test out as well as one might expect, but then use them and va va va voom! :-) >Going back to another conversation for a minute: If Leica was adding English >electronics to the R4, they must've been preoccupied with something other than >having the camera work. In the mid 70's, only the English had a worse reliability rep >than German electronics did. Well, at least it's a step up. :-) ========== Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Pi R Squared? No Pi R round, Cornbread R Square!