Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Right you sare - my error..In fact, I had one of those Three-in-the-morning moments when I woke up and thought, s---! It was a 43-86...and your description is close to perfect...actually, "coke bottle bottom" might be even more accurate.. At 04:46 AM 4/2/98 +0000, you wrote: >B. D. Colen writes: >> >> I must be missing something here...Collectability aside, the prime >> attraction of the M series its the outstanding mechanical quality of >> the camera and the equally outstanding quality of the lens optics. >> LUGERS debate endlessly about which version of which l! >> ens, with how many elements, is how many gnat hairs sharper than what >> other version of the same lens. Fine. So why the excitement about the >> new Tri-Elmar? >> >> >> According to the literature posted at the Leica website, the new lens >> "is distinguished by a good to very good renedition at all three focal >> lengths... >> >> "Aberrations such as coma, vignetting, and curvature of field are small >> to begin with and can be virtually eliminated by stopping down to >> f/5.6-8..." >> >> >> "Good to very good"? For $2,000 >> >> "stopping down to f/5.6 to f/8" ? For $2,000 >> >> >> What happened to "excellent to very good"? >> >> >> Granted, this is the first sort-of-zoom for a rangefinder - right? But >> given the quality of each of the individual lenses, and given the small >> size and weight of each of the individual lenses, and given that while >> not all of us have 28s but virtually all of! >> us have 35s and 50s that will fit in the same coat pocket and will >> produce razor-sharp images, what gives? >> >> >> I know it's a Leica...But that doesn't make it worth running out to >> spend $2,000 for. In fact, it sounds like the Leica equivalent of the >> original Nikkor 35-85 (?) zoom. It was compact, but the images it >> produced sure weren't up to Nikon quality. > >You mean the 43-86, I think, which had four legs & a tail, went "woof" and >ate Pedigree Chum. > >I agree with you, I can't really see the point, it's not that it's *small* > for what it does. > >But it'll sell, and sell in decent numbers, I'll wager. > >ISTM that the public now see a zoom lens on a still camera as a "must >have". You get *loads* of nonsense in places like rec.photo.35mm about how >"zooms are just as good as fixed focal length lenses". No matter that in >99.9% of cases this just isn't true. Zooms are what they want, and zooms >are what they'll get. > > > David Morton | "I've finally figured out what's wrong with >dmorton@journalist.co.uk | photography. It's a one-eyed man looking > Islington, London, UK | through a little 'ole. Now, how much reality > (+44) 171 272 8908 | can there be in that?" (David Hockney) > > > >