Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Mike Quinn wrote: >> Mike Quinn (who fantasizes about a 400 mm lens, but then probably wouldn't >> carry it around if he had it) Mark Rabiner replied: >> All along we hear about how top people consider their 50 to be their long >> lens on their M. >> But I think things have changed. Actually they are returning to normal :) >> On the 400 why not put a 500 mirror lens on an existing SLR? Well, the "Bokeh" of the mirror lenses can be troubling. (And with a 500 mm lens, just about everything is "Bokeh"...) Sal DiMarco,Jr. Answered: > Carrying a 135mm is a lot lighter than a reflex and a > 180mm. Especially when the 180mm isn't essential to the job. Exactly. > What I really would like is a 180mm w/ eyes. A few years ago, I had the > chance to play with Rolf Fricke's 180 APO-M prototype, and it was FANTASTIC! > It was about 1/2 the weight of my 135 f/2.8 or so it seemed. And oh, so > smooth and sharp. Gasp! I want One!! (Unexpectedly, just when I least expect it, the dreaded Leica lens lust virus strikes!) What was the 180's aperture? Marc James Small wrote: > Occasionally, I'll go wild and do a 4/17cm combination > -- my 2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar with a 2X Ukrainian tele-converter, RF-coupled. ARRGH! I want one of those too! Let's see, I could replace my 90/2.8 with a 90/2 and get a 180/4! My 135/4 would become a 270/8! (Ah, would it work with my Leica lenses?) Mike Quinn