Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/02/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi, Compared to the 2.8 the 90/2 is larger and heavier to carry around, and it costs more. The extra f stop offer narrower depth of field or half the exposure time when you need that. You may want to consider your own needs and preferences carefully before deciding. Do _you_ like to have a really narrow depth of field. Do _you_ like to shoot in dimly lit situations. I have the 90/2. I like it's image making qualities but could have done without some of it's weight. I am not sure I'd like to give up the narrow depth of field though. I like that for portraits. If I were to buy my 90 today I'd have considered the 2.8 very carefully and tried to do some tests as to how large, practically, the depth of field difference is. Regards, __ Tore - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of nmansara Sent: Friday, 27 February, 1998 07:08 To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica-Users List Digest V2 #199 I want to purchase a 90 mm lens for my new M6, but I cant decide between the 90 f2 & 90 f2.8. Is one believed to be a better lens than the other.