Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/07/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]TSL wrote: > > >> Point well taken about a Leica "kit" ><snip> Leica M bags need to be much less deep. > >> > Yes, I agree - they are big fat ugly zooms. They are threatening, or > perhaps they make people look like they have some sort of special edge, like > a big one... > Yeah, well - It's lacking class, style. A guy with a big zoom. It just > gives more elegance, style, and smoothness to the guy next to him as he > suddenly reveals an M6 with 30/2 - Makes 'em feel like a dummy. No? Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net> wrote: >>Yes although I wouldn't turn down one of those newly styled Nikon lenses, the 80-200 matching the 28-80 I think the numbers go. They seem deadly functional. But I haven't shot with a zoom in years, I played with one for five minutes on the road a few months back. An indispensable tool for most, a key to mediocrity for me. Mark Rabiner>> >>> and of course I am still thinking about the 35-70/2.8 - which is not relatively so big... But I don't think I'd still keep the 35/2-R - I'd put it in the money bin (if I had one) and lower...the price of the asph zoomer. Speaking of zoom, what can be said about the 70-210 that was manufactured in Japan? How bad is it? Or is not too bad? It weighs as much as the lens cap. It feels 'very' unLeica, but then again how does it compare? I've no intention of buying one... but may use one here and there.