Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I had a G1 with the 45, 28 and 90 - which I dumped to get my M6. I did this for >only two reasons: the G1 autofocus sucked - sorry, but there's no other word for >it. It was slow. It wasn't particularly accurate. And in dim light? Fagetit! I had the same kind of experience and since I had no problem with autofocus speed, I had a lot with accuracy. >The second reason I got rid of it was that the "manual focus" was nothing more >than a hand adjusted auto focus. Same conclusion here too. >Now, having read a fair amount, and having played with a G2, I gather that the >autofocus is much better - although the "manual focus" is still not manual. I played too with a G2 and since AF was faster, it was as unrealiable than the G1 one. _This_ was the reason why I sold my G1 set. >As to the lenses - Sorry Mark, but they were terrific. To my eye they were every >bit as sharp as their M counterparts. This time, I beg to disagree. I often tested my Zeiss 45 and 90 vs. Nikon lenses (I don't have a Nikon 28 and compared the Zeiss 90 against Nikon 85/1.8 mm). In no case, at no aperture, the Contax Zeiss even approached the Nikons performances in terms of sharpness or contrast. In particular, the full aperture results were far inferior. In the same time, the Leica M lenses I tested were better than Nikons at full aperture to f/4. Then Nikon takes the edge again. IMHO, the G system is the most pleasant I ever used but the lenses were not that terrific though good enough. Best regards. --- Jean-Claude Berger (jcberger@jcberger.com) Systems and RDBMS consultant (MCSE), Lyon, France http://www.jcberger.com