Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/13[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
David, your argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You are saying that you only care about those types of photographs that you do often. Those that you do seldom, well, they can suffer lesser quality because... because of what? Aren't all photographs that you take of equal importance? Do you single out certain photographs that don't have to hold up to Leica standard while others must? I would be interested in hearing why the amount of use of a lens gets can possibly dictate the quality needed for the lens. Thanks, Jim At 06:03 PM 1/13/01 -0500, David Kieltyka wrote: > >Well, in my case the non-Leica LTM lenses I own mostly fill in focal lengths >I wouldn't bother with if Leica were my only option. My 21mm lens is a >Kobalux, and while it may be outperformed by the Leica ASPH (I know the >Leica has to be an amazing lens 'cuz the Kobalux is damn good) I don't use a >21 enough to justify the extra cost. It's not that I can't afford the Leica >but rather that I insist my purchases meet or exceed my chosen >value-for-dollar threshold. And I can use the Kobalux with my IIIf too. For >the same reasons my 75mm lens is a Cosina Voigtländer and my 135mm is an old >Nikkor. But when it comes to the focal lengths I use most often35, 50, 90I >go with Leica. The Summicrons and Summiluxes, along with a nod to my >treasured 50mm Elmar, are without question the reason why Leica Ms are my >cameras of choice. > >-Dave- >Jim Brick <email@example.com> wrote (edited): > >> I have to ask this. Since we are all Leica aficionados, and >> love the look and feel of real Leica equipment and the >> unquestioned superior results, why in hell would someone >> want to buy a brand-x version of something that Leica has >> already done so masterfully?