Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim Brick wrote >>I have both a 50/2 and 60/2.8. They are different lenses. The 50/2 cannot be beat for general overall good photography. The 60/2.8 takes outstanding photographs as well. But the results seem a little different. << Jim I couldn't agree more that the 50/2 is a good general purpose lens. I think we sometimes equate "general purpose" with "boring", as in "jack-of-all-trades but master of none". But interesting photographs are created by the photographer, and not by the lens. Granted it's easier to play with spatial relationships using an ultra-wide, or to compress things using a tele, but you can a little of both with a 50. I've been on the road the past several weeks -- both Northern and Southern California. I found time for lots of night photography. I used the 50/2 a great deal. I used Portra VC400, which has a unique ability to tame various types of artificial light. I shot at full aperture quite often, even when using a tripod. I'm glad that I had the extra stop -- and the nice bright R7 viewfinder -- for focusing. BTW, I had a chance to try a 180/2 Summicron APO while in the Bay Area. That's some lens. A little big, but a stunning performer. Dave