Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Larry - I'm not an R user - I'm an M user with an old Nikon F and a couple longish lenses - but I have to ask, in response to your comment about the weight and size of the 35-70: what would a 35, 50, and, say, 80, for the R weigh in comparison to the zoom.. After all, the zoom replaces those three lenses, so as long as it weighs less, or at least doesn't weigh more, aren't you ahead of the game? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Larry > Kopitnik > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 5:37 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Photokina news 2 > > > >>>>>>>>>> > >The Vario-Elmarit-R 35-70 f/2,8 ASPH (wish Leica should invent shorter > names) weighs 1050 grams and uses E77 filters. Lenght from bayonet is 88m= > m > and lens cap diameter 133mm. > > > Reply : according to CI n=B0 207, p. 17 the length is 133 mm and the diam= > eter > is 88 mm.You have inverted the data. > <<<<<<<<<< > > Yow! That's the size of Nikon's current 80-200 f/2.8 lens (though > about 20% > lighter), a lens I got rid of because it was bigger and heavier than I > cared to carry. But this is a 35-70, a normal lens. I don't doubt for a > moment that it will be optically superb. I wonder, though, if its size > limits its usefulness as a normal lens. I don't expect it will bother > photojournalists or nature photographers also carrying the 70-180 R -- and > perhaps it's aimed primarily at those kinds of groups. But it's > not exactly > what I'd want dangling from my neck while vacationing at Disneyland. > > Larry > > >