Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/09/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Alan Ball, PMFJI >>My ETERNAL point is that there very well might be an<< >>advantage on the light table ( I have some doubts but<< >>cannot argue on that ) but that this advantage is not << >>major enough as to give a competitive edge to Leica R<< >>images beyond the light table table.......the prices are << >>ridiculous for such a marginal potential advantage......<< >>I have always had a hard time with believers you state << >>you recognize Leica images after the....printing process<< >> But I do not. I'm not a believer: the holy glow escapes me<< Point by point :-) ! There is an advantage on the light table with the following Leica R glass ( owned & used by me ); 1.) 280 apo f4. 2.) new 180 apo f2.8. 3.) 100 apo Macro. 4.) 70-180 apo f2.8. relative to their Nikkor & Canon "L" counterparts. Given that Leica slides are better, it's obvious that Ilfo- chromes made from Leica slides will be better. In fact, why would not prints made from Leica negatives be better as well. Am I'm missing some esoteric nuance? Your final point is that Leica glass is too expensive relative to a price/performance curve that you've built in your mind. Let me state the characteristics of my price/ performance curve......I enjoy R optics that are w/o peer; such as the ones I've listed above ;-)! I've always had a hard time with writers who comment on gear that they haven't used. It's not so bad once or twice; but, when it's written again & again..ETERNALLY ;-) Alan, life is short; eat ice cream, worry less & get some R Leica apo glass ;-)! Tom D.