Re: [Leica] How good/bad/terrible is the R4?

[Bill Stanke <bstanke@turbonet.com>]

I like Mr. Day's suggestion to look at the Contax.  These are also sold
(NEW - gasp!) for $999 with the 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 zoom.  These two lenses
would let her cover a lot of ground.

The Olympus OM system also has a good reputation for macro work.  The 50
mm f/2 and 90 mm f/2 are reputed to be the equal of Leica glass.  The 4T
body is available (used) for about the same $$ as the Contax, and a "2"
series for around $200.  You could also pick up a 50 mm /f3.5 for $160,
and get a 50 mm f/1.8 for another $30 for non-macro work.  The 50 will
get down to 1:2 on its own, and 1:1 with a 25 mm extension tube.

See this site for a detailed OM lens tests:

http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

Bill Stanke

George Day wrote:
> 
> Perhaps a relatively inexpensive body, but terribly expensive lenses.
> 
> A great system for a beginner who might want to take high-quality (albeit
> 35mm) macro images would be a Contax Aria ($400 or so in ex condition) with
> a Zeiss 60/2.8 Macro lens (a bit more than that, but a simply stunning and
> versatile optic).  If you shop smart, you'll come in at under a grand.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Lee,
> Jonathan
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 9:34 AM
> To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject: [Leica] How good/bad/terrible is the R4?
> 
> LUGers,
> 
> My wife is expressing a budding interest in photography (bless her for
> that!).  She doesn't like my M6 and also wants to do some macro/flower
> stuff. Now, that I've dumped all my Nikon stuff, I've no SLR for her. I've
> noticed that the R4 is very cheap relative to the other Leica SLRs. I've
> searched the archives but couldn't find a thread on R4 durability.  Could
> any ex or current R4 users comment on an R4 for a beginner photographer?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Jonathan Lee