Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/05/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] R state of the art
From: Ben <>
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 10:01:32 +0000

adrian bradshaw wrote:

>Ben (....) wrote,
>which Canon lens would you compare to Leica's 50s by way of an obscure and
>exotic example? The 50/1.8, 1.4 and 2.5 are all flimsy and all have IME play
>in the focussing ring. But the 50/1.0 has a passable focussing ring I grant

Yeah, why not the 50/1.0. It's in the same price bracket. But there is
another option - The manual focus Canon 45/2.8. Oh, and you get
tilt/shift thrown in for free.

>I would agree that the L series generally have better focussing feel
>on MF but the L series has a number of important omissions which mean that
>one is inevitably left to compare Leica fixed focal lengths to 'budget'
>Canons from the 15mm fisheye through to 100mm.

Serious omissions? Well there are basicly the same number of Canon L
lenses as Leica R lenses. Therefore if there are omissions on the Canon
side there must be at least as many omissions on the Leica side.

>Let's not be silly - by 'ploy' I meant a marketing ploy not a covert attempt
>to destroy the world as we know it. I for one had no problem focussing with
>my pre-AF Nikons

Perhaps, but then Nikon lost enormous market share to Canon purely on
the basis of AF. It's hard to argue that an advancement that people
clearly want is a "ploy".