Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/02/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 11:01 AM 2/4/97 +0000, you wrote: >As to the 40/2.8, you state that the 40/2 is better. Without doubting >you, if there were so few made/sold out where how was this >determined? Sorry--that was a careless remark, obviously not based on any experience. Rogliatti describes the 40 f2.8 as "a good lens performance wise" and the 40 f2 as a lens that "performs very well"--not enough evidence to support that remark. Iv'e always heard, though, that the 40 2.8 is a fine lens. As for the user/collector stuff, I guess I'd say that it would be irrational to buy the 40 2.8 to use; why not use the 40 f2, which is good and faster, and sell the 40 2.8 to put your kid through college? Anyway, to each his own! Best, Charlie Charles E. Love, Jr. CEL14@CORNELL.EDU