[none]

[Aubin <aubin@aa.net>]

ZZZAAAAAAAPPPP!   "Lurking mode disengaged"

Hey Guy,

D'Accord, the streets of Paris do feel safer to walk about in, even with way too many dollars worth
of hardware in tow!  In my home town of New York, or my current residence in Seattle, I get 
rather apprehensive of doing such, at least without suitable backup.  In both the U.K. and in Paris
I felt safe anywhere, anytime.  I think they're rather civilized in this respect, although a few of
my rough and tumble friends would say pacified.  I digress.

I use the 24 without the finder, using the rangefinder frame lines to handle issues of parallelism and
framing, and usually find the edges of the viewable area to coincide very nicely with the resulting 
images.  Frankly, I have enough error at the edges of virtually any picture that I can't get overly
worried about this for the 24mm.  Thats the nice thing about enlarging; I can crop out the slight
bit of edge error in making the final print.  If it mattered that much to me, I'd go back to the R series
and use the zooms to get 'perfect' framing every time.

To me, the essence of the M is the handling, and the viewfinder makes me edgy, always worrying
about hitting it and breaking it off, plus it makes the camera too difficult to operate smoothly.  I want 
to frame the shot and take the picture, and not move my eye to two different viewfinders to get there.
Truth be told, the sun shade is a damn bother too; its too big.  But it works so well I hate to remove
it.  

Yes, I know about zone focusing, but thats not how I work.  I focus every shot so that the subject 
is spot on, probably because I also tend to want to work as shallow as possible.  I'd rather get 
used to making sure each picture is focused where I want, and give up on the few that I miss because 
of the delay involved.  Perhaps its because my other work is done with 4x5, and so the concept is 
rather alien to me anyway.

I spent today at Mt. Rainier, a rather towering piece of rock reaching to about 14K feet, using the 
24/50/90 trio, and borrowing my friends 35 (pre-asph) occasionally.  I want one.  Its just right, but 
ya know, I could have used the 28 a lot too!  FWIW, I was using Kodak's asa 160 HC film (whose 
exact name escapes me), because I like its effects for scenery.  Wish I had some Velvia and 
some Astia, but I want to use just this stuff for a while and get it 'calibrated'.  

Too much haze today, followed by heavy clouding and light sprinkling, but there is still nothing in the 
world better for the soul than taking a camera and making some images, particularly of something
so majestic as a mountain like this one.  I shot less than a roll of film, but had a great time
looking at the place, and saw more places to go back to.  Using a camera like the M may not 
be everyone's cup of tea for the scenic work, and I know I could have done some things better with 
my 4x5, but damn, I felt good.

For those who are curious, there were (seemingly) 10's of thousands of touristas there as well,
but I saw not one other Leica.  Lots of wunderplastik cameras, and almost as many video rigs,
but they all seemed to be having as much fun as me, so I will refrain from critiquing them.  One thing
I will never understand though: taking videos of a mountain or stream while talking into the mike,
I guess I just don't get it.

For my British friends who are curious about this place, its like the Lake District, say near Rhynos 
Pass out of Ambleside, or the drive from the Kyle of Lochalsh back to Fort Williams, but with lots 
of trees!  Oh, and one really big snow covered mountain sticking up in the middle of it all!

Rather than let this wander even more, let me summarize by saying that I want a 35 to compliment 
my 24 and 50, but then I'm going to look into the 28 again.  I guess it proves my own belief;
never let go of a lens that you have, unless you just flat never ever use it.  Even then, think carefully,
because everyone of these lenses has a specific use and capability, and when you need it, you 
have it.

I want them all, and I want them now!

B.D. - this probably does nothing to help you converge on your own decision as to which lenses to 
get, but the fact of the matter is, there are so many more I want that I probably couldn't separate
my own desires from yours.  You're on your own on this one.

Norm

ZZZAAAAAPPPPP!  - back to the shadows!


***************************************************
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 09:50:52 -0800
From: Guy Bennett <guybnt@idt.net>
Subject: [Leica]  Re:

hello b.d. and norm,

thought i'd put in my 2 cents worth on the subject of 21 vs 24...

i bought my m6 with the 50/f:2 and later got the 35/f:2 asph, both of which
are fantastic, imho. as i tend to favor the shorter focal lengths, the
'<SNIP>
[nikon] lens' was to be a 24, but at that point decided i had too much
money :), so bought a leica instead...

i now shoot with the 24/35/50 combo, and am very happy with it. this past
summer, i toted an m6 with those lenses (all chrome) all over Paris and
Amsterdam, hauling them around every day in a domke camera satchel. (btw, i
<SNIP>
got to be careful), and vignetting - even when shooting wide open with a
filter and hood - is negligible.

i'm not sure why, but leica wide angles seem a little 'wider' to me than
the nikon lenses of the same focal length. i had no problem adapting to the
<SNIP>
couple of months, and haven't mastered it yet. i'm finding that i really
have to work at it to get the best from that lens.

b.d., should you opt for the 24, i would recommend getting the finder,
<SNIP>
to come back to your original question, i would get the 24 and the 75,
since the 21 and 24 are too close together for my likings, and i would get
the extra 2 stops with the 75.

good luck with whatever you choose and keep us posted on the acquisition!

guy