Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted Grant wrote: > > All in all? I'd have an 80-200 f4.0 without question, it's a fine lens > (apart from the ring rubber) extremely sharp and nice crisp edge contrast > with excellent colour rendition. > > As far as comments...."made in Japan by Kyocera" I can only say, that if > these folks are producing Leica glass/lenses under Leica specs... I'll take > them any day! As I've mentioned on LUG some months ago I tested (informally--puttering, not Putz-ing) the 80-200 Leica F/4 against the 80-200 f/2.8 I own. In all cases--front light, back light (with induced flare), closeup, whatever--images were virtually indistinguishable. I even had several photographers compare the two unmounted rolls on light table. None favored one over the other. The difference is that Nikkor is $1000 cheaper and one stop faster and AF too. In all fairness, this lens is considered one of Nikons prizes. Last week I also shot job with 35-70 Nikor at 35 and same strobe lit scene with 28mm Contax G lens and also could not tell apart, except, of course, perspective. But a year ago tested f/3.5 Leica 35-70 against Nikkor and Leica wins by slightest margin. But I can definitely tell the 35 'cron M lens from all others. Just the opinion of one set of aging eyes. donal - -- Donal Philby San Diego www.donalphilby.com