Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/16
[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? <<<<<<<<<< First, my appologies for not responding more quickly. I see the list in digest format. Second, my appologies for bad math. I'd posted the new R 35-70 would be the same size as Nikon's 80-200 f/2.8 lens. Actually, rechecking this morning, it will be a couple inches shorter. Which is still quite large. To answer the query above, I wouldn't carry a 35, 50 and 80 mm lens with me. But I would, and often do, carry a 35 and 85, both 1.4s, when I need the speed. I'll take a 35-70 when I expect f/2.8 to be fast enough and don't want to hassle with changing lenses, when all I want is one body and one lens dangling from my neck . I use a 35-70 for convenience. And I question how convenient a big and heavy and neck-pain-inducing-if-you-carry-it-for-long (at least that's what the 80-200 used to do to me) normal zoom will be. But as I alluded to in my original post, it may well be that my use of such a lens isn't Leica's intended market for it. Larry