Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mechanics are certainly important, but if Leica's own description of the optical quality is so ify, I'd be very cautious about investing the money - if I had it to invest! The other problem, of course, is the lens's lack of speed. This is a day-at-the-beach, or in the mountains lens, not a lowish light level street shooter.... At 02:56 PM 4/1/98 -0500, you wrote: > >I was thinking like you until I had it in my hands >this afternoon. >I don't know the quality of the results, >but mechanicaly it worth every penny of $2.000. >Incredible ! > >Lucien > >>I must be missing something here...Collectability aside, the prime >attraction of >the M series its the outstanding mechanical quality of the >camera and the equally >outstanding quality of the lens optics. LUGERS >debate endlessly about which >version of which l! >>ens, with how many elements, is how many gnat hairs sharper than what >other >version of the same lens. Fine. So why the excitement about the new >Tri-Elmar? >>According to the literature posted at the Leica website, the new lens "is >>distinguished by a good to very good renedition at all three focal >lengths... >>"Aberrations such as coma, vignetting, and curvature of field are small to >begin >with and can be virtually eliminated by stopping down to f/5.6-8..." >>"Good to very good"? For $2,000 >>"stopping down to f/5.6 to f/8" ? For $2,000 >>What happened to "excellent to very good"? >>Granted, this is the first sort-of-zoom for a rangefinder - right? But >given the >quality of each of the individual lenses, and given the small >size and weight of >each of the individual lenses, and given that while not >all of us have 28s but >virtually all of! >>us have 35s and 50s that will fit in the same coat pocket and will produce >razor->sharp images, what gives? >>I know it's a Leica...But that doesn't make it worth running out to spend >$2,000 >for. In fact, it sounds like the Leica equivalent of the original >Nikkor 35-85 (?) >zoom. It was compact, but the images it produced sure >weren't up to Nikon quality. >>Any thoughts? > > > <bold><italic><bigger>B. D.</bigger></italic></bold>