Re: [Leica] 80-200/4

[drodgers@nextlink.com]

TMLee

You wrote:

>>I've heard good comments about this 80-200/f4 from other sources as
well....... but do U find it a tad too slow for use... ?  Does this aspect
ever pose a hindrance to U ? How would U deal with this problem  other than
using your rather well equipped M system for low lite situations ?I don't
have a chance to use this lens , but I guess the f4 would cause it
to be rather dim thru the finder..... what are your experiences with this
aspect ?<<

I really don't have a problem with the maximum aperture. It performs well
wide open. The R7 viewfinder is quite bright. I shoot Portra VC400 neg film
and various 100 speed chrome films, which I sometimes push one stop. I find
myself shooting at f4 more often with chrome films for obvious reasons. I
think the ability to frame using the zoom more than offsets any speed
advantage of a 180/2.8. The two stop advantage of a 90/2 Summicron is a
little more substantial, but since I've owned the 80-200 I haven't used the
Summicron. I'm a firm believer that actions speak louder than theory.

While I've used the 80-200 a great deal -- probably more than I would have
used a 180/2.8 and my 90/2 combined -- the M system has advantages when
light is a premium. For reach I have a 135 TE and that performs well wide
open, and it's  as though I gain a stop in shutter speed with a
rangefinder. I also have a 90/2 M, which I rarely use. I use my 50/1.4 a
great deal. I'm still looking for a deal on a Noct, but that's not a
priority now. I've been looking at the new 50/1.4 R, but I think another
lens purchase is at least a year away.

I really like the R system, which is a change for me. For half a decade I
hardly used anything but Ms. Owning a zoom is also a change. A decade ago,
when I used Nikon AF, I owned several zooms -- 24-50, 35-70 and 80-200. All
were AF. The first two were prone to flare. The latter was a great lens,
though IMO not as good as the current Leica. It also seemed more
cumbersome, which is no surprise since it was a stop faster. Actually, when
I used Nikon I also had a 180/2.8 AF and I used that more than the zoom.
And when I switched to Contax about 5 years ago I went to primes
exclusively.

I can only recall one time when I wished for an extra stop in the 80-200,
and that was shooting a football game under poor lights. I pushed my film
to the max and it still didn't turn out. I don't think a lens that was two
stops faster would have helped.

Dave