Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Okay, here is the flip side of the whole issue as a working photographer. The client does not deserve Leica glass, as far as I'm concerned. While I do relatively well, most photographers are grotesquely under paid. They simply can't afford to walk through the door with shoots done with equipment that cost more than their lifetime supply of cars. In the Reagan economic collapse, many publishers, or media buyers, scaled back their rates. Many of us that made $750-$1200 a day plus expenses, saw it nearly halved. Those reduced rates have stayed with us to this day. Every now and then in PDN, you'll see an article dealing with that issue from every sector of the working photographic world. Now that a media product can have its circulation increased many fold due to the internet and increased usage, there has been an attempt to redress this issue. As of yet I don't see rates that can place a Leica in a working photographer's kit. While covering boxing, I saw only one 280 F2.8 Telyt, and a rental at that. Everything else was a Canon, with a very sparse scattering of Nikons. I was using a Rollei, believe or not, with an occasional RF by you know who. Being at ringside, a 50 is considered a long lens. Slobodan Dimitrov "Robert G. Stevens" wrote: > > Sam: > > Of the R glass, the Nikon glass cannot touch any of the R lenses designed > in the 1990's or later. This includes lenses like the 70-180APO and the > big APO-Tely glass. Even the moderately priced 35-70 f4 would perform > better than the Nikon equivalent. > > If you compare the Minolta designed 24mm or even the 80mm Summilux to the > Nikon equivalents, you will find similar performance. The Leica lenses > will tend to have a better colour rendition and better flare control. > > I had the Canon Eos 400mm 2.8. It was the version prior to the IS lens. I > also have the Leica 400mm f2.8. I found the Leica produced images with > more snap to them and better shadow detail. I noticed when shooting soccer > and football , the Leica would have detail in the shadows and black shorts > or Jerseys, while the Canon lens didn't hold the detail. The leica lens > also gave a nice 3d look to the muscles in the arms and legs. The Canon > lens might have looked more contrasty and thus sharper, but the images > lacked the snap of the leica and looked 2d. > > Regards, > > Robert > > At 08:10 PM 2/22/2002 -0500, Sam Carleton wrote: > >First off, I love my Leica M, but I understand that it cannot do > >everything. I am seeking lens that can come close to comparing. In > >speeking with my local camera store, who sold me the M6, they said that > >the R glass is not any better then Nikkor glass. What is the opinion of > >the LUG on this matter? > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html