Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sat, 10 February 2001, Jem Kime wrote: > > Bob, > You'll kick yourself for not getting a solid old wetzlar SL/SL2 if the R3/4 > goes wrong. > The surprising thing, I think, is the comparitive values placed on the SL > and SL2. Quite why the SL is so cheap I don't know, it does 95% of what the > SL2 does but sells for sometimes less than half the price. > If you want to mount three extra lenses and meter a stop (or two?) further > into the darkness then buy the SL2, if not, then save a bundle and sneak an > SL home. > > Jem. > The pricing of the SL vs. the SL2 is related more to scarcity than to function. I think Stephen Gandy's website lists SL production at about 30,000 and SL2 considerably less. Initially the SL2 used 3 more lenses than the SL but there are at least 3 more now that may be used on the SL2 and not on the SL: all 3 current-production Summilux-R lenses (35, 50, 80). I think of the SL2 as the dim-light Leicaflex and the SL as the general-purpose Leicaflex. IMHO, the SL2 is better if you need to use an SLR in near-Noctilux conditions and the SL is better for every other SLR application. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/