Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm absolutely agree with the George comment, I've owned a Super Angulon R 1:4/21mm, and in my opinion was clearly better than Elmarit M 2,8/21mm, I was very satisfied too with the quality of the Summicron R 90mm, and with the Apo Telyt 3,4/180mm. Saludos cordiales Luis -----Mensaje original----- De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org] En nombre de Lottermoser George Enviado el: lunes, 24 de septiembre de 2007 15:57 Para: Leica Users Group Asunto: Re: [Leica] R lens comparison 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. > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information