Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> I can't imagine looking at a scene and saying "if I only had a > lens two millimeters longer (or wider)." I was in that situation yesterday. And Monday. And five or seven times on Saturday. (Sunday was a slack day for car maintenance and such.) Probably not tonight but it looks like at least twice tomorrow, maybe three times depending on how crowded a conference gets. And I was DAMNED glad to have a 16-35 zoom instead of depending on 17, 20, 35 (all of which I have). I gave up a stop to the 35, broke even on the 20, and actually gained half a stop on the 17. Working pj's wind up working regularly in close-quarters situations where a wide-angle is an absolute necessity and taking five or six steps forward or back ISN'T possible. Also take into consideration that in a quiet room, changing lenses draws a great deal more attention than simply rotating a ring around the lens, (not to mention the need to pay for (or convince purchasing to pay for) and carry multiple lenses). I'm not a big fan of telezooms, because having more room between you and the subject makes those compromises unnecessary, but up close and personal-like, the less you have to move the better, and I'm willing to trade off for that. It's certainly a limited-market lens, which most amateurs aren't going to be terribly interested in, but I think it's also a fairly important one to have if Leica wants to use the M8.? to put themselves back into the professional photojournalism world. The convenience / possibility factor simply outweighs the purely photographic considerations (which, you're right, would argue STRONGLY against the existence of such an optical abortion.) And everyone's mileage will vary. -- R. Clayton McKee http://www.rcmckee.com Photojournalist rcmckee@rcmckee.com P O Box 571900 voice/fax 713/783-3502 Houston, TX 77257-1900 cell phone # on request