Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] R lens comparison
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Mon Sep 24 06:57:55 2007
References: <46F7140A.5090109@suddenlink.net> <068a01c7fe59$3c0b33a0$6901a8c0@NSPIBMR40>

As far as the wide angle comparison - I think it unfair to compare  
retrofocus wide angle designs with true wide angle designs. Moreover,  
I've found my old 21/4 R SuperAngulon to perform better, over the  
full range of f stops, than any comparable focal length by Canon or  
Nikon (I've owned all three). Obviously individual samples may come  
into play in these anecdotal comparisons. As far as the 35 and 50 R  
Crons. I'd be hard pressed to call them "weak" (but then I haven't  
owned an M cron for over 25 years). My 35 and 50 R Crons display fine  
detail, contrast, and great tonal separation in shadows and  
highlights at all stops.

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com



On Sep 23, 2007, at 10:16 PM, A. Lal wrote:

> IME, the old 21 and 28 lenses and the current 35 & 50/2.0 R lenses,  
> are weak in comparision to the corresponding M optics.
>


Replies: Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] R lens comparison)
Reply from luisripoll at telefonica.net (Luis Ripoll) ([Leica] R lens comparison)
In reply to: Message from jmaddox01 at suddenlink.net (Jack Maddox) ([Leica] R lens comparison)
Message from alal at duke.poly.edu (A. Lal) ([Leica] R lens comparison)