Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]A 35mm f2 lens costing $1000 isnt exactly cheap anyway. The 35/2 AF-D Nikkor is only about $300 new as is the 35/2 Canon EOS lens. These lenses, with their autofocus gearing (and a motor in the case of the EOS lens) are more mechanically complex than a rangefinder lens, are both reputed to be very good lenses from an image quality standpoint, and still cost 1/3 what the 'cheapie' Zeiss lens does. So the Zeiss is pretty costly too, I think. I wouldn't mind trying one and comparing against my Leica 35 V4 Summicron. I have used a few of the Cosina Voigtlander lenses and they were optically very good but the build quality on the 35/1.7 Ulron and 50/1.5 Nokton sucked, though the 35/2.5 PII was built very nicely I though. I sold it because it was too contrasty for my taste but it was SHARP and built well. -- Chris Crawford Fine Art Photography Fort Wayne, Indiana 260-424-0897 http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work! On 2/27/10 2:20 AM, "Daniel Tan" <taniel.dan at gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 February 2010 16:16, Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> >> Its a ZM lens we refer to on the LUG. >> It cost a thousand dollars. >> A Summicron cost three thousand dollars. >> You want to compare them straight across you think that's wise? >> > > > Considering that we are dealing with the best optical designs in the > industry, would it not be wise to examine all options based on their merits > rather than disregard a 'mere' $1000 lens just because the one labelled > Leica costs 3 times more? > > :Dan > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information