Re: [Leica] Non-Leica-Made Electronic M?

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

I was only referring to the optics, not the mechanics.  I have handled the
lens and for sure the mechanics stand out far and above any other lens I
have seen.  But I repeat, the optics may be great, but seeing a difference
unde a loupe over a light table does not make it "vastly greater".  Show me
the proof, same film, lighting, subject, different lenses.

Dan C.

At 02:57 AM 15-08-98 -0500, Eric wrote:
>No experience means an opinion with little validity. Some experience, some
>validity. A lot of experience, a lot of validity. My opinion is informed,
>since I've seen what a Canon 80-200 2.8, 70-200 2.8, Nikkor 80-200 2.8,
>Sigma apo (yeah, right) 70-210 2.8, Tokina 70-210 2.8 and Tamron 80-200 2.8
>can do. This lens eats them alive. And when I say it's vastly better, I
>mean the fit and finish as well as the optics. This lens is the smoothest
>lens I've ever used, M or R. Optically, it's as good as it gets. Color
>character, bokeh, all wonderful.
>
>I would have said exactly what you are saying before. How much better could
>this lens be? 
>
>It is.
>
>For example. Someone said they thought the long throw from min. focus to
>infinity was too far. But I shot some football practice today, and found
>that that long throw allows very accurate follow focus. Much better than
>the Nikon or Canon equivalents (not counting AF of course). It was very
>easy to keep the focus just where I wanted it, standing in the middle of
>the scrimmage. (I was hit twice).
>
>But also optics. Phenomenal.