Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 01:13 PM 3/2/99 -0800, you wrote: >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. Because Leica is a little piece of grit in their eyes. They like to think they make the best lenses. And in some cases, they do. But Leica is there to poke them in the eye with a Noctilux that still outperforms their lens, even though it's from the 70s and doesn't have an Aspheric element. They claim theirs is better, but from those to date who have used both, that I have talked to say that they think the Noctilux has special qualities that make it actually a better lens to use. I'd like to try the Canon, but I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. So Leica comes out with a zoom lens that has no equal. It's got to bug them when they think they have the best designers. >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 Nobody here would argue that fact. Eliott Erwitt also has a picture of Jackie crying taken with an old 400 mm lens. Not terribly sharp, but who cares? It's a wonderful picture. But anyone using that lens today for professional work would be laughed out of the press stands. :-) Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.