RE: [Leica] Traveling light with Leica.

["Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>]

Interesting, but I had a 2x converted. I traded it in when I bought the
80-200. I used it with a 90/2, and it worked well as a 180/4. Since that
duplicated the aperture and focal length of  80-200, I didn't think I needed
it. 

The only problem with the 2x is that even f4 seems slow to me. Not sure I
could live with f8 max aperture. I guess that's the only negative thing I
can say about the 80-200. Fortunately it performs extremely well wide open.
And I use it wide open a lot. I also use my 400/5.6 wide open a majority of
the time. It's funny how one additional stop can make a big difference at
times. I wish the 80-200 was f2.8, but I've used a 70-180 and it's a
handful.  

Dave

  

- -----Original Message-----
From: John Collier [mailto:jbcollier@powersurfr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8:36 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Traveling light with Leica. 


For a small and inexpensive 400, just buy an old 2x converter for your
80-200. Not as good as the Telyt but smaller than the 90/2.8.

John Collier

> From: "Rodgers, David" <david.rodgers@xo.com>
> 
> I only took two bodies, M6 and R7. I used both equally. Had a 15 Heliar,
> 35/1.4 ASPH and 90/2.8 Elmarit for the M. I had a 28, 50 and 80-200/4 for
> the R7. I didn't use my 90/2.8. Could have left it at home. I could have
> used my 400 Telyt. Too bad the two wouldn't have been an even trade size
> wise.