Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Quality wise, though, would you still say the 2.0 presents better quality enlargements than the 2.8? I have been told that the 2.8 is sharper and contrastier at 2.8 than the 2.0 at 2.8....do you agree? At 06:31 PM 3/25/98 +0000, D Khong wrote: >At 09:12 AM 24/3/98 -0800, you wrote: >>I have an M6 0.85 with a 35/2 ASPH and a 50/2. >>I am ready to buy a 90mm for the M6. Which >>version will give me the highest quality images >>from f/2.8 to f/8? I do not have to have the f/2 if it >>is not the best since I already have 2 f/2 lenses. >>F/2.8 would be fine. Some have told me that the >>2.0 is soft wide open and the 2.8 is sharp and >>contrasty wide open. Any more comparisons >>on these lenses? >> >> >>Francesco Sanfilippo, > >I have used both the 2.8 and the 2.0. I still think the f2 version is >better, if you are not too concerned about the weight. Firstly, I take >mainly people pics and portraits and so the f2 gives me the effects that I >want. > >Secondly, I have used two versions of f2.8 (the small second version and >the current version), and I find the both the lenses somewhat more flary >than the summicron. > >The only reason I carry my 2.8 around is when I have weight constrains and >would rather carry a smaller lens. Otherwise I would prefer to take pics >with my summicron. > >Dan K. > Francesco Sanfilippo, Five Senses Productions webmaster@5senses.com http://www.5senses.com/