Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/11/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sat Nov 3 18:31:35 2007
 
> Leo, the WATE isn't 2.8 either, so the Zeiss 16/2.8 is what you NEED.
> Now pull out your card slowly and ask yourself: if only I have that
> extra stop and the Zeiss optics, I would have gotten that... and
> everything seems so worth it now. Doesn't it?
> 

Its so cool that you guys know what WATE means. I wonder who else does?

Mark William Rabiner
markrabiner.com
Replies: Reply from hoppyman at bigpond.net.au (G Hopkinson) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
Reply from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)
 In reply to: Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] 16-16-15 lens comparison)