Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Charlie, > 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...) I have an SL and have in the past also had an SL2 (which I sold at a collector-type price). The SL is plenty sensitive enough for what you describe, and the short answer to your question is that there is no real compelling reason to spend the extra money on an SL2. > 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. I use this lens as my normal lens on the SL. It is an excellent general purpose lens, the only disadvantage is the max. aperture of only 2.8, but with the SL's extremely bright screen this is not much of an issue. It gets you to 1:2 magnification, and 1:1 with the appropriate macro adapter. Nathan - -- Nathan Wajsman Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch mobile: +41 78 732 1430 Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2002.htm General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html