Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Henry Ambrose wrote: > I 've owned the old 24 and its pretty darn good, as is the 55. The E > Series were crappy plastic lenses that were poor performers. I owned a > 70-150 and it was sh#t, but it was very light. Actually I'd take issue with that last comment. The 75-150 E series wasn't very robustly constructed (it was an E series after all), but they were *very* competent performers for their day. Widely regarded as being ever so slightly better (though with less range, obviously) than the contemporary 'pro' series Nikkor (the 80-200 f4). I still own both a 75-150 E, and an 80-200 f4, and while I don't carry the E often, I wouldn't hesitate to use it even today. > I think a lot of what makes his pictures work is that he actually got > somewhere that very few others ever walked much less made pictures of. > To me his pictures are NOT about ultimate quality but rather about > showing a place that most will NEVER see first hand. He has made some > good pictures with mediocre equipment. Yes, his pictures might have > been sharper if he used a 4X5 but then the picture might never have > been made! Ummmm...my 5x4 bag is actually lighter than my 35mm bag! Only one body, no motor drives, fewer lenses (because you can crop more with 5x4). Am I doing something wrong?