Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You have to put it all in perspective, the 90/2AA is smaller and lighter than a Nikkor 105/2.5. If you think you might want f/2 and can afford it, go for the AA. I traded up from a 90/2.8 TE to a 90/2.8E-M and finally to the 90/2AA. I have had no regrets and have been delighted with the performance of both the E-M and the AA. I have never noticed any viewfinder obstruction but I went and double checked just now. About 1/6 of the viewfinder in the lower right corner is blocked at closest focus (AA). Viewfinder obstruction has never been an issue for me. I know it bugs some people but I just never notice. Not particularly bright I guess... John Collier On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 06:44 PM, PhotoWrite wrote: > I'm aware of the size/weight difference (on paper, not in person) > between > these two lenses. I think either of them would be sharp enough as many > are > very happy with their f/2.8 Elmarit M (although some say it could be > smaller). > > I'm willing to pay the price for the 90mm APO, and surely f/2 would be > nice > as I see the M6 as primarily an available light system, but is the > size, > weight, and viewfinder obstruction worth it? > > I have received some help/comments from posters on Photo.net, but I > would > appreciate opinions from the LUG about the size, weight, handling, > viewfinder obstruction, public-perception differences between these two - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html