Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Fri, 06 October 2000, George Lottermoser wrote: > > Just out of curiosity - Is there any particular reason that a 250 > f:4 with 2x never came up as an economic possibility? > > George Ya got me there - I didn't think of it 'cuz I don't have a 2x and just wasn't thinking in those terms... OTOH a 250 with 2x gives a 500 f/8 - and given all those bits of glass absorbing light, it's significantly slower than a 400 f/6.8. Also, an early 250 (the "affordable" one, costs almost as much as a 400) doesn't have a rotating tripod socket, so vertical compositions are a bit more of a hassle. The late 250 is better in that regard, having a rotating tripod collar, and it's designed for the shoulder stock, but it's still f/8, slower to focus, and costs more than the 400 f/6.8 Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt - -------------------------------------------------- Visit the Northwestern Alumni Association portal page at http://www.nualumni.com to get free web-based e-mail and many other exciting features.