Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Thu, 9 May 2002 13:41:55 -0400 charles walden <charlie@highhill.com> wrote: > I couldn't find any particularly compelling > reason to spend the extra money > for the SL2 vs. the SL. It seems like the main > difference is a more sensitive meter. Is that > correct? Is the sensivity an issue when saying > shooting at EI 260, 1/8th sec, f2 (I usually > don't go too much outside that range...) Aside from the more sensetive meter, the SL2 can also use several lenses that requre more mirror clearance, but none of those lenses are particularly suited to close-up photography. IMHO, SL2 prices more than SL prices are driven more by collectors than by users, since the SL2 is much more scarce than the SL. For your use the SL should be fine. The SL's meter sensetivity should be OK but I don't have an f/2 lens with me today to verify. > I'm thinking about the 60mm macro lens as a > first lens. I can do closeups and still have a > lens that I can carry around and shoot with. It's a great lens, and it's been around for about 30 years so finding a used one shouldn't be a problem. The only usability problem is one that's common to macro lenses of this focal length: sometime you get so close you cast a shadow on the subject. Doug Herr Birdman of Sacramento http://www.wildlightphoto.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html