Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/05/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> why in the world anybody who is on the Leica User Group would > even consider a G2 instead of an M6 on the basis of "cost". simple. I'm a Nikon user. I've used some of the finest nikkor lenses. I'm rarely happy with the quality of these lenses (I've seen shots with leica 35/2, 50/2 and some contax G series lenses, therefore my disappointement with nikkor glass...). I've decided I want some better glass than nikon. I've decided leica and contax provide better glass. and leica does not necessarily make better glass than zeiss (NO FLAMES!!! I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE "LEICA FANATIC LIST" :-))))), BUT ZEISS' GLASS IS VERY GOOD TOO). in MY COUNTRY (and I could get it from other neighbour countries as well), a G2 sells for $1500. I haven't seen the M6 for less than $2500. and leica M lenses cost more than double (here) than equivalent focal lenght G contax lenses. M6 + 35/2 = 2x G2 + 35/2 for me it's simple. for half the money I could get MAYBE (probably?) the same quality (final picture sharpness, bokeh and colour rendition, not talking about M6 vs. G2!!!). bu I've decided I won't. I'll by an M6, even if I have to wait a long time after that to get the first lens for it... because as you put it -- it's really a one lifetime purchase. fernando.