Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric, You make a good point, but $4,000 is still steep for a lens. I like to eat and pay my mortgage. Second point, why would Canon be crying when they are #1 in the Pro market these days? Even if the 70-200L is only as good as the Leica (Kyocera) 80-200 F4 and not on par with the 70-180 F2.8 it may still be good enough. Remember, its the image that counts. Case in point, Stan Stearns' image of little JFK Jr. saluting at his father's funeral in '63 is a soft image but no one cared. It was a great image and one of the most famous in the last 40 years. (Was it taken with a Leica? Don't know. I'll ask Stan.) You can see the image I am refering to at http://www.ssphotography.com/john.htm Sometimes, its the image, or getting the image that really counts. I am sure magazine/newspapers readers who saw this photography of JFK Jr. did not care what camera/lens he used to get it. Peter K "SD dujour" <snip>....It's not that much. You can get it for under $4,000 with a rebate. That still sounds like a lot. I got mine for $3,000.<snip> Canon is most likely crying on the design tables as they wonder how they can match this one. Nikon, they have a new lens. <snip>