Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mystery Man "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> writes: >I have heard that the C*n*n lens is optically inferior to the Leica Noctilux, >but I've never compared the two directly (I prefer N*k*n, too). There are >some images taken with the C lens on photo.net. >Which brings to mind an unrelated question: Of all the Leica users out there, >particularly Leica M users, who also have SLRs, how many are using C*n*n >equipment as opposed to N*k*n equipment, and why None of the above. My SLR is an Olympus OM-2. Small and light, low noise and vibration for an SLR, and with some very good lenses available. And with a cult following similar to (although less rabid than) Leica's. The more recent multicoated lenses are quite good. The humble late-model 50/1.8 has been deemed "almost as good and consistent as a 50 Summicron" in some writings. The 28/2 and 100/2 have also gathered much praise as world-class lenses, with the 90/2 macro in a class by itself. The OM system is still available, and lots of good used stuff is out there (along with a lot of junk, caveat emptor). There's even John Hermanson of Camtech, the OM equivalent of Sherry or DAG. There are some things that an SLR does better than an RF (macro, architectural, carefully-composed full-frame landscape, filters especially polarizer). Some would argue that the effect of lenses wider than 35 or 28mm is more easily perceived on an SLR. And the jury is still out on whether an SLR or an RF focuses a fast 90 more easily. 'Tis not treason to have an SLR along with a Leica RF--in fact, it makes sense for many. "Best tool for the job" and all that. The paragraph above is subjective, personal and your milage may vary. Batteries not included. Offer void where illegal, immoral or fattening. - --Peter Klein Seattle