Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/01/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>>> So . . . what's the deal with the 2.8? What is the general opinion of this lens. Is it worthy of the Leica name? (I get the sense that it isn't completely up to par with the classics) Is it a performer? Sharp? Contrasty? Does it produce pleasing images? <<< Bob, As far as I know they're optically the same as the R versions. I'm using an old R version (Wetzlar, concave rear element) and IMHO the images are fully worthy of the Leica name. There's a little softness in the corners at f/2.8 but by f/4.0 the image detail and contrast is indistinguishable in practical use from the 180 f/3.4 APO. The transition from sharp to out-of-focus is smooth and the out-of-focus areas are pleasing. The later version (Canada, convex rear element) is supposed to be better. Doug Herr Sacramento http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt