Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/07

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Why a 35mm lens?
From: Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:36:34 -0800
References: <3A080DBA.EF460E2B@home.com> <200011070621.HAA10357@d1o915.telia.com> <4.1.20001107182045.040157d0@xsj02.sjs.agilent.com>

Jim Brick wrote:
> 
> At 01:55 PM 11/7/00 -0500, Marc James Small wrote:
> >Biotar.  Zeiss again!  (How do we spell optics?  Z-E-I-S-S, I keep trying
> >to tell you guys!  Leica is adequate, but Zeiss is magnificent.)
> >
> >Marc
> 
> Yes... which is why my Hasselblad gets more use than my Leicas! Hasselblad
><Snip> 

All I can tell you is that i am running right down the wire 242 against 242 as
to a Contax RTSIII or a Leica R8. Over the counter at CameraWorld I've played
with the RTSIII twice this week. A tank of a camera with such quick and sure
precision! And as the silky R8 had neither winder no motor it was an unfair
comparison as Dave Rodgers and I traded back and forth the two cameras on the
counter. 
Zeiss glass or Leica? 
Love those 60 macros but which one?
I'd use 35mm SLR for macro and longer telephoto use. A 180.
It's running right down the wire. But I've got to see the N1 first in another Month.
How would their new  Zeiss 2.8 100 macro compare against the mighty Leica
APO-MACRO-ELMARIT-R ?
mark rabiner

Zeiss is nice!
but Leica is like riding a Bike a!

Replies: Reply from Wilfred VonDauster <vondauster@earthlink.net> ([Leica] OT: N1)
In reply to: Message from Ted <tedgrant@home.com> (Re: [Leica]Why a 35mm lens?)
Message from "Alan Hull" <hull@telia.com> (Re: [Leica]Why a 35mm lens?)
Message from Jim Brick <jim_brick@agilent.com> ([Leica] Re: Why a 35mm lens?)