Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 08:49 AM 11/24/1999 +0100, you wrote: >I was wondering if there was an enormous difference between the 19mm and the >21mm for R? I don't have it but I own a 24mm elmarit 2.8 R. Could someone >give me some advice about these three; and at least, is there any clue, >after having almost all the M lenses refreshed, that Leica will now refresh >all the R lenses? Depends on which 19 you're talking about. The new one is an absolutely fabulous lens. Leica has no need to refresh some of their R lenses. The 24 should be the next, in my opinion. It's an old formula, designed by Minolta. It's a very good lens, but seeing what they can do with the 19 and 28 (both rather new formula) makes me wonder how good a 24 Summicron could be. But from what I'm hearing, they're not planning on any mass upgrade of the R system lenses that need it. >I would like also to know wich lens is at equal distance in terms of vision >between the 50mm and the 24mm, 35 or 28? Distance? If I had a 50 and a 24, I'd probably go for the 35. But you might prefer the 28. Keep in mind, the 35mm Summilux is a very good lens - nearly as good as the M ASPH lenses, but the Summicron has a very high resistance to flare. The 28 is one of the newer R lenses, and it's really fine. Eric Welch Carlsbad, CA http://www.neteze.com/ewelch Always be on the lookout for conspicuousness (or, It's hard to tell if someone is inconspicuous).