Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Didier, All three share the same optical design which is derived from a Minolta design from the 70's. As a performer, it is OK, I certainly would not acquire one to use on a DSLR as you can use the native lens with comparable result. If you already own one, then results will be comparable to what you can get from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta so that would avoid expending funds. If you are looking for this focal length then the Canon 17-40 is very good at the 24mm setting as well as the Canon 24mm F1.4 or 2.8 version perform very well. I hope this lukewarm comment about this particular focal length helps you in your decision process. Don don.dory@gmail.com On 10/27/05, Didier Ludwig <rangefinder@screengang.com> wrote: > > Dear LUGgers > > I'm interested in the Leica 24/2.8 Elmarit-R lens for using on a dslr > with crop-factor. > > I have read there are three types: > > - Type 1 (1974-90) 2 or 3 cams > - Type 2 (1990-) 3 cams > - Type 3 (1998-) ROM > > My questions are: > > - How does this lens perform? Are there optical differences between > the three types? > - As the lens would be used manually with an adapter, am I right > supposing it does not matter if there are 1, 2 or 3 cams or ROM? > - has anyone ever compared this lens to a manual focus Nikkor 24/2.8 or > 24/2.0? > > Any advice is appreciated. TIA. > Didier > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >