Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/08/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > > Leica lenses tend to be a bit warmer than Contax lenses. Blake Ziegler, who > is the Contax head guy for the U.S. says my observation is correct. I say > Contax is blue, and he says Leica is yellow. So you're right about eye of > the beholder. > > You can't go wrong with any of their lenses, but the selection of lenses is > much more restricted than Leica. And the long and fast lenses are > significantly more expensive in the Contax line. The 200 f/2 is something > like $12,000 US. Eric, As someone who doesn't own a Leica but will get an M3 + 90/2.0 or 75/1.4 when he can afford it :-) , but does own a Contax SLR + 85/1.4, 180/2.8 and 50/1.7 Planar, I would point out that the "common" lenses are cheaper than Leica, the "uncommon" lenses are frequently more than Leica. IF you stick with focal lengths between 20mm and 180mm, you will find it cheaper to go with Contax, however the long lenses are as you mention more than the Leica lenses. It's weird, some of the lenses in the Contax line are "bargains" even when compared to Canikonoltas, and the build quality is very good (though the Leica lenses I have handled are even more substantial), while other stuff is substantially more; no one on the Contax list has been able to detect any pattern... Cordially Patrick Giagnocavo a222@redrose.net