Re: [Leica] Rangefinder or SLR?

["Roland Smith" <roland@dnai.com>]

Re: 200mm Telyt

I recently acquired one with the detachable extension tube for use without
the Visoflex and with the Leitz 200mm viewfinder.

I used it fo the first time last week to photograph the full moon.   The
enlargement I just printed from the top of my Omega D2 enlarger is
surprisingly sharp.

This appears to be a crisp lens.   Is that their reputation?

Roland Smith



- -----Original Message-----
From: Ruralmopics@aol.com <Ruralmopics@aol.com>
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Date: Wednesday, December 29, 1999 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Rangefinder or SLR?


>
>In a message dated 12/29/99 4:44:25 PM, tedgrant@islandnet.com writes:
>
><< In reality, why wouldn't they continue to promote and make the visoflex,
>after all there are a great number of SM&M cameras out there where the
>owner could afford the visoflex, but not an R8 or other R with appropriate
>and very expensive lenses.. >>
>
>I'm quite sure I should just let this whole thing drop but I'm intrigued.
>
>Personally it doesn't bother me at all if somebody wants to use a Visoflex.
I
>just don't buy the more affordable arguement -- at least not when you keep
>results in mind. Maybe I'm missing something. Let me see if I understand
the
>argument . . .
>
>The Viso will save the LTM or M user money because he doesn't have to buy
an
>SLR and lenses to go with it. Is that right? Makes perfect sense when you
>compare it to an R8. But is that really a fair comparison? Are their only
two
>choices -- poor but funky or top of the line? A fella could buy an R3 or R4
>for not much more than a Visoflex III (yes, a Viso II would be cheaper).
>Isn't that an option?
>
>It must be the lenses for the R camera that make the proposition so
>expensive.  But again, aren't you comparing brand new state of the art
Leica
>R glass to 1960s-era Viso glass? But assuming for a moment that older
>Viso-appropriate Leitz glass is acceptable, is it possible to buy these
>lenses for less than some other brand's modern SLR glass? Would a
20-year-old
> 200mm Telyt outperform a modern Pentax, Minolta or, dare I say, Canon
>telephoto or (shudder) zoom?
>
>If my thinking is fuzzy on this I'm sure someone will let me know but in my
>mind,  if cost is a factor it seems more practical AND economical to use a
>relatively modern Japanese camera and telephoto when you need an SLR than
>monkey around with a Visoflex -- which I imagine to be sort of clunky in
>operation. Maybe I'm nuts, I don't know.
>
>But hey, like I say. It doesn't bother me. Do what you want.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>