Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/06/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: 180 crap?? (was:Re: [Leica] Re: Best Hadow and Highlight Metering)
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 14:08:51 -0400

I haven't used the Leica 180 2,8, but it would have to get up pretty early
to best the Nikon 180 2.8 ED....which is a really amazingly sharp lens, easy
to handle, with very nice BOW KAH!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Julian
> Thomas
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 1:54 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: 180 crap?? (was:Re: [Leica] Re: Best Hadow and Highlight
> Metering)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Herr" <telyt560@cswebmail.com>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 6:11 PM
> Subject: 180 crap?? (was:Re: [Leica] Re: Best Hadow and Highlight
> Metering)
>
>
> >
> > I'm curious which 180 qualifies as crap ...  I understand the expensive
> part.
> >
>
> Sorry Doug, a bit of a too-quick email. I was doing a lot of theatre stuff
> and wanted a 2.8 180 on a mechanical body with a good spot meter. I've
> always used OMs but loved the R6. At the time the leica 2.8 very stiff and
> awkward to use. I tried both and the Olympus was sharper and
> easier to focus
> and handhold at low light levels. I couldn't justify the price of a leica,
> especially considering I was shooting without flash, usually at
> 30/60th sec
> wide open on tmax 3200. Neither gave me the same quality as the Nikon 2.8,
> but the Nikon bodies were just too noisy. This all about 10 years
> ago before
> the leica asph 180.
>
> Julian
>
>

Replies: Reply from Wilber Jeffcoat <jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net> (Re: 180 crap?? (was:Re: [Leica] Re: Best Hadow and Highlight Metering))