Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]<html> <font size=3>I bought the 15 a few months ago and have now exposed a couple of hundred frames with it. At the risk of inciting a hot reaction, I'm prepared to say now that it's performance is not remarkably better than the Russar 20/5.6, which I used for a couple of years. I think that I got one of the *good* Russars, or maybe I have an inferior Heliar, but I was expecting, on the basis of the raves here and elsewhere an appreciably better lens.<br> <br> This is not to say, however, that it's a bad lens, far from it--and I have no intention of getting rid of it--but critical users may be mildly disappointed in the results. I was curious enough about all this that I departed from my ordinary style and actually exposed a set of negs using a tripod. I'm pretty confident that my comparison with the Russar will stand up. The Russar exhibits far more vignetting (which I never found objectionable), but overall contrast and sharpness are to my mind pretty much on par for ordinary usage. <br> <br> Interestingly, I sold the Russar and finder on eBay for almost exactly what I paid for the Heliar and finder--so I'm certainly not disappointed in terms of their relative *value*, whatever that might mean--and I am delighted to have the 15's field of view, but as I've said in another place, the Contax G Biogon 21/2.8 blows them both out of the water. I can't speak to the newer 21s for the M.<br> <br> Chandos <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <br> <blockquote type=cite cite>Now that 15 is looking MIGHTY good.<br> - --<br> Johnny Deadman<br> <br> photos: <a href="http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.pinkheadedbug.com</a><br> music: <a href="http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk/" eudora="autourl">http://www.jukebox.demon.co.uk</a></font></blockquote><br> </html>