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: 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. That was my experience when I saw those 8x10s. 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! Well to each his own. I know many (wife included) who think that spending more than $10 on a camera is irrational, and those who wouldn't wink at buying a $7500+ for A Canon 400/2.8. It is only ones perception of what is rational. I have difficulty rationalizing the purchase of a 35mm system which is more expensive than an equiv. quality MF system. I can rationalize spending for the 40/2.8 before acquiring a M6 at current new prices. This is not to say that the M6 is not woth it, only that the 40/2.8 may have more value to me. However, don't fret, I won't be sending a check anytime soon. I still have holes to fill in my MF system first. However, if someone wants to buy my 40/2.0 for about $3,000 I'd splurge the differecne and let you call me irrational all day. I'd by one smiling looney. Brian Levy, J.D. Scarborough Ont.