Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Despite a recollection of negative comments about the performance of the 100/4 macro at non-macro distances, I decided to take a chance on one when it and the appropriate extension tube appeared at a most attractive price in the local photo supply emporium & Saturday morning hangout. The external glass needed a good scrubbing, and once that was done I tested it against an 80-200/4 ROM racked out to the same focal length with a subject about 12 feet away. To my eye, the transparencies from the 100 from f/4 to f/8 appeared appeared only slightly softer than the counterparts from the 80-200 and identical at apertures smaller than f/8. Color rendition appeared the same with both lenses. I could not fault the close-focus results with the 100. Admittedly, the test is by no means a scientific one, but it did tell me that I did not get a lemon of a lens. Roy On 1 Jul 99 at 21:28, inyoung@jps.net wrote: > Hello, > > Are the 100/4 Macro-Elmar and the 180/4 Elmar also as good as the > other R > lenses? I have heard nothing but bad words about them so far. I > have thus thought that these two R lenses were the black sheep of > the R lens family. >