Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> wrote: > 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. It's not an all-or-nothing, Leica-or-crap scenario, Jim. The 21 Kobalux and 135 Nikkor are very good lenses. They hardly take images below par or not worth caring about. I like their signatures and wouldn't use them otherwise. Same with the 75 Voigtländer. And I can use 'em on my LTM cameras where IMO they equal or outperform any other lenses available in LTM at their respective focal lengths. But some focal lengths work for me better than others, plain & simple. They are where I concentrate my energies and my $$. I've always had an affinity for 35s, for example, and so haven't hesitated to get and use a variety of 'em, including those I consider to be the best available. - -Dave-