Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/10/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The f2.8 is big, like all of them, I find them too heavy to carry, having tried the Canon. The f4 Leica is not particularly big, but much bigger than a tri-elmar... FD On 28 Oct, 2010, at 09:28, Mark Rabiner wrote: > But the major thing which happened was in four years the 35-75 > configuration > the orignal for mid range zooms was totally antiquated as it expanded in > both directions over night and a 28-85 or 24-105 was not thought of to be a > bloated compromise. But an accepted norm; a 35-70 just oddly limiting. Even > in a much smaller package such as those made by other companies. > Though interestingly normal zooms were not used anyway as much as wide > zooms > and tele zooms. Especially if it had a screechingly limited range of 35-70! > Turned out to be a gap between the 21-35 and 80-200 that people felt they > could live without. But just carry a normal macro. > I think you can shift your weight forward and back and get the same effect > as zooming with a 35 to 70. > Added to this the Leica 35-70 sharp and unflawed as it no doubt was was > bloated beyond all recognition or belief. Though "bloated" may not have > been > the word as it weighed a ton! > An optic of that size came to be expected to have a configuration of those > dumb super zooms. An 18-200 or such. You just had to lug the huge dumb > thing everywhere it never supposedly came off your camera. > But having it go from ever so slightly wide to barely tele was never going > to go over for very long. For all those tons of dollars. > It's one for the collectors. A gold plated bazooka by any other name. > > > -------------------- > Mark William Rabiner > Photography > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > mark at rabinergroup.com > Cars: http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb