Re: [Leica] Which to choose, SL or SL2?

[TTAbrahams@aol.com]

On 7/13/99 6:04:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time Bud Cook wrote:
>Tom,
>I agree with you except that the split image rangefinder in the SL/2 was
>added to aid in the focusing of lenses with great depth of field (like w/a 
lenses).
>The SL works beautifully with macros, telephotos and slower lenses which
>would darken the rangefinder in the SL/2.
>In effect, isn't the opposite of what you say true?
>Bud

Bud,
 I used rather slow speciality lenses on the SL's; mainly the 21/4 S-A, the 
35 PC Curtagon and the 100/2,8 Macro. With the SL 2 screen I had problem with 
the split image darkening (also a case with the long lenses, the 400 and 560 
were almost impossible to focus with the split image). I agree that the micro 
prism can be a bit difficult with some wide lenses, but I usually use the 
SL's in a "controlled" manner, on a tripod or in situations where I can check 
and double check focus if needed. For the quick stuff I use the M's system. I 
find that the split image is a hassle when you use the Macro 100/2,8, I use 
it often with depth of field checks and that blacks out the split image. It 
is particularly irritating with the 65/3,5 Visoflex lens on the adapter. It 
is a stop down lens to start with and gets fairly useless with the SL2 below 
5.6. One reason for getting a more "modern" R camera would be for the ability 
to quickly change focus screens, but at the moment the SL works fine for me.
Tom A