Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Milos, the judgement on the different M and R lenses show my impression, resulting from my experiences. It's nothing official, and it's no test result. Others may have other experiences. Both 2.8/28 (M and R), that I had, were very sharp till a distance of 10 meters approximately, but disappointing behind that distance, my M lens more than my R (and in comparsion to my M SA also, which showed a more fine grey tone rendition additionally). I see the effect of unsharpness at infiniy in the current 1.4/35 asph Summilux also, despite it's extreme sharpness at closer distances. In my impression, both pre-asph 2/35 M Summicrons are more sharp at infinity than the current 1.4/35 asph M lens. Compared to the corresponding Nikkors, the 35 mm M lenses are classes better, while the 28 mm Nikkor is rather close to the M counterpart. Again it's my impression, others may have different experiences. Alf - ------------------------------------------------ At 00:19 15.12.1997 +0100, you wrote: >I am particularly interested in the 2,8/28, my favorite focal length. I was >almost decided to trade all my Nikon plastic gear for a M6 with this lens - >should I have second thoughts now? Also, I've heard in the past that some M >lenses have the same design as their R counterparts - this would explain >why the M 28 is so bulky compared to the 35/2 - even if it's a stop slower. >Yet, the protruding back element would suggest that it is not a retrofocus >lens after all.