Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/04/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/3/04 4:14 PM, "Dante Stella" <dante@umich.edu> wrote: > This is a real question - assuming that the size, weight and noise make > no difference, has anyone actually set out to figure out which lens is > better? Or does anyone have any observations at all? > ____________ > Dante Stella > http://www.dantestella.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information I think a 28 would be harder to make than a 35 and a direct comparison would not be so valid. They are different focal lengths. Compare it against the 35.mm f1.4 Nikkor Ai-S. I'd expect the nikon to be a great lens with the Leica 35 1.4 stupendous beyond all recognition as is well known to everyone I know. I have and love my Nikkor 28 1.4 which becomes a true normal 42mm with digital at 1.5 mag and love it but recognize that it does not compare to anything in the Leica world. True normal is 43.3 I think. A ways off from 50. Which is partly why I got the 28.1.4. And Thrillingly expensive for Nikon glass for the Nikon system. But chump change if it was Leica glass. Unfortunately not silent wave. But punk something. Aspherical glass and a better finish as it is not so glossy as the new LHSA thing which is darn nice anyway. A shame Nikon has given this finish up it is just class. Awesomely impressive. Like a Leitz microscope. But then you hear the little toy motor go buzz. And it weighs a ton and is big as a house. Mark Rabiner Photography Portland Oregon New-improved http://rabinergroup.com/